Heavy Vehicle Amendment - Act now

[scracha]

Gah. As if they haven't destroyed the roads enough already, plans are afoot to allow vehicles to operate with up to 55 tonnes laden weight as opposed to the current 44 tonne limit. Watch this space for when this goes to consultation and lets do something about this.


Heavy Vehicle Amendment
HortNZ staff met with the Ministry of Transport officials recently to discuss the amendment to allow heavier vehicles on our roads. This would allow for vehicles to operate up to 55 tonnes laden weight rather than the present 44 tonne limit. Trials have shown a potential 20 percent gain in fuel efficiency and emissions could be made, providing bridges are up to taking the weight.
Bridges on all state highways are being checked for their tolerance of an increase.
The rule amendment will be out for consultation in June and it is hoped the
amendment will be passed by December 2009.

[NordieBoy]

They need to make some dedicated roads out of say... steel to handle the weight and then they could link up lots of trailers and pull really heavy loads.

[bogan]

i wober if they have even factored in the road damage, all good to get 20% more fuel efficiency, but if it costs more than that to repair the roads then its fucking pointless.

Then again we all know whatd hapen anyway, roads wont even be repaired till they're completely fucked.

NordieBoys suggestions is far better that increasing weight limit

[Slyer]

They need to make some dedicated roads out of say... steel to handle the weight and then they could link up lots of trailers and pull really heavy loads.
Impossible! It's never been done before!

[R6_kid]

How does making a truck 25% heavier give it a 20% fuel efficienyc gain?

[CookMySock]

Yeah but they get charged a lot more money to use the roads. The real problem is the govt pulling money out of the roading fund and squandering it elsewhere.

Steve

[Winston001]

How does making a truck 25% heavier give it a 20% fuel efficiency gain?

Because 5 trucks are currently needed to carry what 4 trucks can manage. Seems sensible to me.

As for road damage, that depends upon the number of axles and tyres. The more there are, the less damage.

[NighthawkNZ]

Because 5 trucks are currently needed to carry what 4 trucks can manage. Seems sensible to me.

As for road damage, that depends upon the number of axles and tyres. The more there are, the less damage.

also depends on the road, and how much maintenance it gets I guess... main National highways should be okay... provincial highway should be ok as well... other roads debatable I have see trucks on the side roads that rip the road up... but being a side road it gets no maintenacne...

[cowpoos]

How does making a truck 25% heavier give it a 20% fuel efficienyc gain?
it equates to removing 1 in five trucks.

and...I know everyone doesn't like the damage...but...I think your pointing your fingers at the wrong group to be honest...mordern trucks are pretty dam good on roads...shame about morden roads!!

[Elysium]

Again we have a rail network that was built for this very purpose being ignored. I'm sure it costs less to maintain a rail network then roads.

[Mschvs]

Bring back trains! Pro's and cons

PRO"S -

1. I locomotive can carry over 10 times as much as 1 truck (depending on the loco)
2. Don't cause ANY damage to the roads, as long as maintenance is kept up at crossings.
3. Don't hold up traffic, or require massive slow downs and passing lanes to be up every hill
4. Are much more environmentally friendly due to their capacity
5. Do I need to say more ...

CONS -

1. Um ......
2. Loss of truck driving jobs ...
3. Um ....

[Cajun]

there is a special bit of totora st @ the mount, which is legal for heavy trucks to use with move containers from a storage dept to the whafts.

This bit of road is meant deisnged ot handle the heavy loads, but still gets a fair bit of mantaince on it,

but in turn the trucks are also accelrating from a stand still which help damage it quicker.

[Mschvs]

Less truck related crashes on the roads .... probably cutting road accidents down by half!!

[The Pastor]

yeah we NEED trains. Trains are so much better than trucks.

Still need the trucks to get to and from the train station tho, but it should see alot of trucks off the main roads

[Slyer]

I thought that was the plan? Wasn't the gubbermint investing a whole lot of money into trains or something?

[CookMySock]

Again we have a rail network that was built for this very purpose being ignored. I'm sure it costs less to maintain a rail network then roads.Everyone hates trains though.. Try saying "choo choo! TOOOT!! TOOOT!! See! Trains are gay!

Trucks hold motorcyclists up? How? Nothing holds me up. :2thumbsup

Steve

[ManDownUnder]

Everyone hates trains though.. Try saying "choo choo! TOOOT!! TOOOT!! See! Trains are gay!

Honda makes trains? Huh! I never knew!

[C_A]

lol @ someone earlier thinking that 50% of accidents involve trucks. if there were no trucks, morons would just find somehting else to crash into.
nz's rail network is pathetic, aged, and fucked.
nz's roads are shithouse. we already run trucks & trailers that are like, twice the required axles and shit than is seemingly required elsewhere in the developed world.
If trucks damage the roads then dropping one in every 5 loads would surely be better for the roading condition. plus the government should be spending road tax and the like actually on roading, not some shithead polititian's taxi fares.

55 tonne trial trucks have been running for some time around various sites around and about.

New Zealand can't do without trucks. The only thing they don't deliver is taken care of by midwives. I don't know why everyone gets up their goat about them all the time. Harden up.

[Winston001]

Bring back trains! Pro's and cons

PRO"S -

1. I locomotive can carry over 10 times as much as 1 truck (depending on the loco)
2. Don't cause ANY damage to the roads, as long as maintenance is kept up at crossings.
3. Don't hold up traffic, or require massive slow downs and passing lanes to be up every hill
4. Are much more environmentally friendly due to their capacity
5. Do I need to say more ...

CONS -

1. Um ......
2. Loss of truck driving jobs ...
3. Um ....

Trains can only go from point A to point B.

There is only one line = delays waiting for the line to clear.

Multi-handling. Load up the truck, take to rail yard, unload, load waits for a train to be available, load up train, arrive destination, shunting and unloading, truck waits for load, picks it up, heads to final destination.

[NDORFN]

They need to make some dedicated roads out of say... steel to handle the weight and then they could link up lots of trailers and pull really heavy loads.

Post of the week !!! :2thumbsup

[NDORFN]

Trains can only go from point A to point B.

There is only one line = delays waiting for the line to clear.

Multi-handling. Load up the truck, take to rail yard, unload, load waits for a train to be available, load up train, arrive destination, shunting and unloading, truck waits for load, picks it up, heads to final destination.

You obviously know nothing about frieghting logisitics. Do some reading on NZR during the 70's - 90's if you want an example of an efficient rail system in NZ. That was before road-railers, intermodals etc... Have you ever seen a truck trailer roll past on rails? I have. It takes less time to assemble a rake of road-railers, that is, road going trailers that literally connect together to form a train, than it does to interchange trailers at truck depots.

[Brownstoo]

yeah we NEED trains. Trains are so much better than trucks.

Yes, but that's just coz NZ roads are absolute shit.

[NDORFN]

[QUOTE=Brownstoo;1129250318]Yes, but that's just coz NZ roads are absolute shit.[/QUOTE

What do you think makes them shit dumbarse?

[NDORFN]

In terms of future-proofing an investment in frieght-logistics in NZ, think about this... what happens when the oil runs low/out? Is it going to be easier to electrify roads or rails? Anyone who thinks a country can live without an efficient rail system are short-sighted fools. Just like our last government.

[Naki Rat]

also depends on the road, and how much maintenance it gets I guess... main National highways should be okay... provincial highway should be ok as well... other roads debatable I have see trucks on the side roads that rip the road up... but being a side road it gets no maintenacne...

More to do with a combination of what loading the road is engineered to cope with, the budget constrains during construction, the geology* it is built on and the vehicle loading (vehicles per day) the road is subject to.

*Roads with rock or gravel foundations such as many in the South Island will cope easily with increased loadings, however try putting the same loads over Taranaki roads with wet volcanic ash/clay foundations and unless a truckload of money is spent on improvements those roads will fail quick smart.

[Winston001]

In terms of future-proofing an investment in frieght-logistics in NZ, think about this... what happens when the oil runs low/out? Is it going to be easier to electrify roads or rails?

Neither. Airships.

[firefighter]

Less truck related crashes on the roads .... probably cutting road accidents down by half!!

Riiiiighhht.......

Iv'e personally been to far more car related accidents than truck related accidents........but that's just me and most people I work with

[NDORFN]

Neither. Airships.

May aswell just fire frieght from large cannons.

[NDORFN]

Riiiiighhht.......

Iv'e personally been to far more car related accidents than truck related accidents........but that's just me and most people I work with

You know that the truck doesn't necessarily have to be involved in the crash to be the cause of it?

[smokeyging]

You know that the truck doesn't necessarily have to be involved in the crash to be the cause of it?

There might be the odd clown driving trucks, yes, but a darned site more drive cars....

[firefighter]

You know that the truck doesn't necessarily have to be involved in the crash to be the cause of it?

Well geez I had never considered that at all.........

I'm really quite naiive and obviously not that well informed on the subject of topic.

You do realise people/witnesses come and tell us what happened and get in the way yabberring on about how it all happened while your planning your method of extrication.....?

You DO know that right?

(hence I wrote truck RELATED incidents)

[NDORFN]

Well geez I had never considered that at all.........

I'm really quite naiive and obviously not that well informed on the subject of topic.
You should come to my work and teach us all stuff.
You do realise people/witnesses come and tell us what happened and get in the way yabberring on about how it all happened while your planning your method of extrication.....?

You DO know that right?

Wow, the fact that all the people/witnesses that come and tell you what happened are all experts is an astounding coincidence. It must be annoying to be told while you're planning your method of extrication, detailed accounts of the psychological state of the driver who was stuck behind a truck doing 60km through a uphill wind only to find himself in a race with the truck on the next level straight as it selfishly speeds up to 110, or to hear the road surface expert explain that the slickening of the surface due to high volumes of trucks taking a corner that wasn't designed for such traffic caused the car to lose traction, or the diesel build up through two weeks of dry weather which in a single sun-shower has turned the road into a slip'n'slide. I could go on and on, but you've heard it all, obviously.

[meowmix]

So, how may we act on the amendment? Where are public submissions? Better yet, where is the research? I'd be interested in some statistics related to truck weights, truck numbers, efficiency, etc. and how it is related to other forms of transport e.g. rail or shipping.

When it comes down to it, what is the leading smaller road damaging truck (for roads that see less maintenance e.g. provincial highways)? My guess is logging. And logging trucks can't really be replaced. Rail is not that flexible.

However from what I have observed, the rail system for everything else is very underutilised. I'd much rather have my tax spent on upgrading the rail system. It seems our Govt. has the 'patch up' principle to fix problems, rather than actually finding solutions; as is evident on our local road surfaces...

[Patch]

Gah. As if they haven't destroyed the roads enough already, plans are afoot to allow vehicles to operate with up to 55 tonnes laden weight as opposed to the current 44 tonne limit. Watch this space for when this goes to consultation and lets do something about this.


Heavy Vehicle Amendment
HortNZ staff met with the Ministry of Transport officials recently to discuss the amendment to allow heavier vehicles on our roads. This would allow for vehicles to operate up to 55 tonnes laden weight rather than the present 44 tonne limit. Trials have shown a potential 20 percent gain in fuel efficiency and emissions could be made, providing bridges are up to taking the weight.
Bridges on all state highways are being checked for their tolerance of an increase.
The rule amendment will be out for consultation in June and it is hoped the
amendment will be passed by December 2009.
Why?





shove your 10 fucking characters up your . . .

[Mikkel]

They need to make some dedicated roads out of say... steel ...

Asphalt would do.

[NDORFN]

So, how may we act on the amendment? Where are public submissions? Better yet, where is the research? I'd be interested in some statistics related to truck weights, truck numbers, efficiency, etc. and how it is related to other forms of transport e.g. rail or shipping.

When it comes down to it, what is the leading smaller road damaging truck (for roads that see less maintenance e.g. provincial highways)? My guess is logging. And logging trucks can't really be replaced. Rail is not that flexible.

However from what I have observed, the rail system for everything else is very underutilised. I'd much rather have my tax spent on upgrading the rail system. It seems our Govt. has the 'patch up' principle to fix problems, rather than actually finding solutions; as is evident on our local road surfaces...

Rail IS that flexible. Infact, rails were the mainstay in the first 100 years of NZ forrestry, extracting trees from deep within the forrests. From the mid-1900's, the extraction was done by truck to the edge of the forrest where it was taken by train to port, which is what they mostly do now. If they didn't, you'd notice a shit load more logging trucks on the road than you do, we're talking thousands more. It's sufficed to say that the roads would be absolutely fucked.

[C_A]

In terms of future-proofing an investment in frieght-logistics in NZ, think about this... what happens when the oil runs low/out? Is it going to be easier to electrify roads or rails? Anyone who thinks a country can live without an efficient rail system are short-sighted fools. Just like our last government.


how exactly are you going to make all this electricity?
WE use dto live with some moron hippy bitch that reckoned there should only be trolley buses.....
she was also a shallow idiot that didn't think that electricity manufacture factored into this. coal fired power stations and the like.
tell me how you can make a truely 'environmentally friendly' power source to power increased electric vehicles without going nuclear and I'll eat my hat. Don't refer to Chernobyl either coz that's an irrelevant example. Nuclear power wasn't at fault there.
solar, wind, hydro, goat fondling. all great ways of making that sparkly fuzzy tickly stuff that spews out the power points in the walls but it's really not that 'safe' for the environment.
I agree rail has it's merits. In the days of regulated transporting, though, rail was compulsory for out of town freight so, it had to work. It really didn't though, people jsut stockpiled a whole lot more shit they needed, and couldn't get things in a hurry.
I also struggle to see how trucks can casue accidents due to 'diesel build up over a few weeks'. That's generic road philm over high traffic areas, not neccessarily casued any more by trucks than it is cars. I drive down streets that trucks never go down that are way worse in that regard.

[NDORFN]

how exactly are you going to make all this electricity?
WE use dto live with some moron hippy bitch that reckoned there should only be trolley buses.....
she was also a shallow idiot that didn't think that electricity manufacture factored into this. coal fired power stations and the like.
tell me how you can make a truely 'environmentally friendly' power source to power increased electric vehicles without going nuclear and I'll eat my hat. Don't refer to Chernobyl either coz that's an irrelevant example. Nuclear power wasn't at fault there.
solar, wind, hydro, goat fondling. all great ways of making that sparkly fuzzy tickly stuff that spews out the power points in the walls but it's really not that 'safe' for the environment.
I agree rail has it's merits. In the days of regulated transporting, though, rail was compulsory for out of town freight so, it had to work. It really didn't though, people jsut stockpiled a whole lot more shit they needed, and couldn't get things in a hurry.
I also struggle to see how trucks can casue accidents due to 'diesel build up over a few weeks'. That's generic road philm over high traffic areas, not neccessarily casued any more by trucks than it is cars. I drive down streets that trucks never go down that are way worse in that regard.

I'm all for nuclear energy. It's nuclear waste I'm not too keen on, especially in a country with fuck all civil-security, and no where to store it! We don't have a problem with electricity production in NZ, we have a problem with electricity consumption, which is something the gummint is currently addressing. As for the future, there is an abundance of damable rivers with little environmental impact that hasn't already been caused by farming, HUGE untapped potential in tidal power generation in the Cook Straight, wind-farms, methane-farms etc... the future isn't going to consist of LESS potential for cost effective power production which is what you seem to think, it's going to consist of MORE. So to recap stupid, future = More electricity for less, less oil for more. I'm sure you struggle to see how trucks cause accidents due to diesel fume build up... I'm sure you struggle to see alot of things.

P.S After deregulation of transportation in NZ, a company called Railfrieght showed the potential for an integrated frieghting system combining short-haul trucking with long-haul trains. This again was improved on massivly by Transrail. Transrail unfortunately came up against the '88 crash and were struck down to square one. With the eventual sale of the railways to an Australian company for $1, the major problem to further development was the way the government made it so incredibly easy for trucking companies to operate profitably without paying thier dues for the damage and inconvenience to other road users. Why? Because there was more tax-revenue from trucking companies using public roads, than a rail company that owned it's own road. So while that "moron hippy bitch" (totally agree with you on that one) was attempting to fuck over our cousins across the ditch by selling them a dog with an agreement that they clean it up before selling it back to us, we saw a massive increase in truck traffic, but now the logical thing to do is utilise it to it's full potential before it becomes another write-off.

[miSTa]

Just because trucks will be able to have heavier load doesn't necessarily mean that they will. At the same time, having trucks be able to carry more doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in truck numbers.

[Elysium]

Trains can only go from point A to point B.

There is only one line = delays waiting for the line to clear.

Multi-handling. Load up the truck, take to rail yard, unload, load waits for a train to be available, load up train, arrive destination, shunting and unloading, truck waits for load, picks it up, heads to final destination.

No different to what trucks do. Take Linfox for example. They supply the Woolworths supermarket chain in Australia and here in NZ and there is a lot of unloadig and loading involved from DCs. In fact some stuff is sent from Wellington on truck for Palmerston North but the truck will go straight to Auckland to pick up more stuff for Palmy and then come back down here to the DC, then on to the supermarks.

There is a lot of goods that really should be hauled on a trunk line but you will still need trucks for Fresh goods.

[scracha]

Why?

Mainly because the roads can't cope with these loads.

Damage done to the road rises exponentially with the weight. That's why in most countries there are VERY strict penalties on overloaded trucks.

1 x 55 tonne trucks will do a lot more road damage than 5 x 40 tonne trucks so the potential fuel savings may be outweighed by the cost of road repairs and the certain increase in lives lost due to poor road surfaces.

Essentially the trucks cause pretty much all the damage to the roads. Never mind bikes, your average family sedan caused feck all wear and tear in comparison.

[h20boy]

I've been told it costs around $1 000 000 to lay 1km of rail over virgin land...around 3 times this for roads capable of withstanding high volumes of traffic and heavy loads.

I work on various rail sites around the North Island and it is safe to say that a huge percentage of NZ's rail infrastructure is being used to only a fraction of is potential...witness the 2 full trains each weekday morning and afternoon through Auckland...followed by empty trains all day.

[Elysium]

I've been told it costs around $1 000 000 to lay 1km of rail over virgin land...around 3 times this for roads capable of withstanding high volumes of traffic and heavy loads.

I work on various rail sites around the North Island and it is safe to say that a huge percentage of NZ's rail infrastructure is being used to only a fraction of is potential...witness the 2 full trains each weekday morning and afternoon through Auckland...followed by empty trains all day.

The rail industry should never have been privatised, never works nor makes profit(the amount Corporates expect) which is why is in a bad state. Only the govenment has the money to properly run the rail system.

[NordieBoy]

Riiiiighhht.......

Iv'e personally been to far more car related accidents than truck related accidents........but that's just me and most people I work with

And no airship related accident I'll bet...

[NDORFN]

I've been told it costs around $1 000 000 to lay 1km of rail over virgin land...around 3 times this for roads capable of withstanding high volumes of traffic and heavy loads.
I work on various rail sites around the North Island and it is safe to say that a huge percentage of NZ's rail infrastructure is being used to only a fraction of is potential...witness the 2 full trains each weekday morning and afternoon through Auckland...followed by empty trains all day.

Not sure if this is true but I do know that once tracks are laid, the maintenance costs compared to roads are nominal.

[p.dath]

They need to make some dedicated roads out of say... steel to handle the weight and then they could link up lots of trailers and pull really heavy loads.

You mean, like, a railroad system? Nah, will never work.

[Ixion]

What's needed is for all you lazy youff type persons to get off y' chuffs and start inventing stuff.
Us old buggers, we've done our bit. We've invented shit loads of good useful things. Roads, trucks,airships, cars, motorbikes, petrol, pies, condoms, hamburgers, beer, wine, nachos, cell phones, crash helmets, false beards, sex,radar detectors, reticulated water supplies, democracy, spaceships, skull face masks, blow up dolls, two strokes, just about every useful thing y' can think of.

Time for you younger ones to do your bit and get on with inventing new useful stuff. Like anti gravity, matter translocation, taps that don't drip, inter galactic travel, that sort of thing. Should be easy , cos we've laid the foundations f' y'.

Just get on with it , okay.

EDIT: I left out roast dinners. We invented them too.

EDIT EDIT : Curry. that's another good thing we invented.

[NDORFN]

What's needed is for all you lazy youff type persons to get off y' chuffs and start inventing stuff. Us old buggers, we've done our bit. We've invented shit loads of good useful things. Roads, trucks,airships, cars, motorbikes, petrol, pies, condoms, hamburgers, beer, wine, nachos, cell phones, crash helmets, false beards, sex,radar detectors, reticulated water supplies, democracy, spaceships, skull face masks, blow up dolls, two strokes, just about every useful thing y' can think of. Time for you younger ones to do your bit and get on with inventing new useful stuff. Like anti gravity, matter translocation, taps that don't drip, inter galactic travel, that sort of thing. Should be easy , cos we've laid the foundations f' y'. Just get on with it , okay.

Name one thing you've invented...

[Ixion]

Name one thing you've invented...

It's a collective effort. I'm a manager, I don't do the actual inventing, I manage.

[NDORFN]

Fair enough.

[The Stranger]

Trains can only go from point A to point B.

There is only one line = delays waiting for the line to clear.

Multi-handling. Load up the truck, take to rail yard, unload, load waits for a train to be available, load up train, arrive destination, shunting and unloading, truck waits for load, picks it up, heads to final destination.

Load gets lost on a siding and is suspiciously found empty a week later.

[Ixion]

Instead of quibbling you should have y' head down inventing antigravity. It's not going to invent itself y' know, and I'm getting sick of waiting around for it. I mean, what's so hard? Just take ordinary gravity and turn it the other way up.

[Chrislost]

Gah. As if they haven't destroyed the roads enough already, plans are afoot to allow vehicles to operate with up to 55 tonnes laden weight as opposed to the current 44 tonne limit. Watch this space for when this goes to consultation and lets do something about this.


Heavy Vehicle Amendment
HortNZ staff met with the Ministry of Transport officials recently to discuss the amendment to allow heavier vehicles on our roads. This would allow for vehicles to operate up to 55 tonnes laden weight rather than the present 44 tonne limit. Trials have shown a potential 20 percent gain in fuel efficiency and emissions could be made, providing bridges are up to taking the weight.
Bridges on all state highways are being checked for their tolerance of an increase.
The rule amendment will be out for consultation in June and it is hoped the
amendment will be passed by December 2009.


in my understanding the south island roads are beautiful?
it was also my understanding they use trains more then trucks down there...

anyone travelled the bombay-matamata road latley? that things screwed!

[Chrislost]

Trains can only go from point A to point B.

There is only one line = delays waiting for the line to clear.

Multi-handling. Load up the truck, take to rail yard, unload, load waits for a train to be available, load up train, arrive destination, shunting and unloading, truck waits for load, picks it up, heads to final destination.

one train from a to b

50 trucks from a to b...

[Winston001]

What's needed is for all you lazy youff type persons to get off y' chuffs and start inventing stuff.
Us old buggers, we've done our bit. We've invented shit loads of good useful things. Roads, trucks,airships, cars, motorbikes, petrol, pies, condoms, hamburgers, beer, wine, nachos, cell phones, crash helmets, false beards, sex,radar detectors, reticulated water supplies, democracy, spaceships, skull face masks, blow up dolls, two strokes, just about every useful thing y' can think of.

Time for you younger ones to do your bit and get on with inventing new useful stuff. Like anti gravity, matter translocation, taps that don't drip, inter galactic travel, that sort of thing. Should be easy , cos we've laid the foundations f' y'.

Just get on with it , okay.

EDIT: I left out roast dinners. We invented them too.

EDIT EDIT : Curry. that's another good thing we invented.

And tomato sauce.

And vegemite. :2thumbsup

[Winston001]

Instead of quibbling you should have y' head down inventing antigravity. It's not going to invent itself y' know, and I'm getting sick of waiting around for it. I mean, what's so hard? Just take ordinary gravity and turn it the other way up.

S'easy innit?! Just spin the particles the other way. Viola. Anti-quarks = anti-gravity.


Right - now that Ix and I have done the heavy lifting, you young'ns put together a matter polariser and we're in bidness.. :buggerd:

[Winston001]

Rail IS that flexible. Infact, rails were the mainstay in the first 100 years of NZ forrestry, extracting trees from deep within the forrests. From the mid-1900's, the extraction was done by truck to the edge of the forrest where it was taken by train to port, which is what they mostly do now. If they didn't, you'd notice a shit load more logging trucks on the road than you do, we're talking thousands more. It's sufficed to say that the roads would be absolutely fucked.

Ok ok I'm convinced.


Just one condition - show us a country with mountainous islands (like NZ) and small population, somewhere in the world where rail runs profitably. Without any support, subsidies, or protection. In fact just show us a profitable rail operation which serves any nation?

[Mschvs]

I distinctly remember a sign (several of varying degrees of idiocy) on State Highway 27 between Matamata and Auckland (and I'm googling trying to find a picture of the freakin thing) saying something like 47% of all crashes involve trucks. But hey, statistics and full of it anyway!!

I'm not saying there aren't other dumbarses on the roads, including motorcyclists (a FEW names pop to mind here) but getting trucks off the main highways would prevent a lot of overtaking (where a lot of fatal accidents happen).

Look, I'm all for idiots dying on the roads to be honest. Mother Helen did exactly that ... mothered the f&*k and the fight out of us with her Highway Patrol and revenue making fine jacking! Survival of the fittest. How else are we supposed to cull the herd without being sent to jail .... it's just not fair when an idiot kills one of the good guys ...

[ynot slow]

The govt will never truly make rail a viable option,due to the fact if more trucks and cars and actually vehicles are on the roading network,they get more road taxs,acc levies,fuel tax,gst on the whole lot.Less heavy road users mean less ruc and fuel tax take.

55 tonnes will be ok if they stick to main highways and arterial routes,and use ruc for the roads,oh yeah never happen.

[Ocean1]

And no airship related accident I'll bet...

'Course not, perfect safety record.

Over 100 years they've been around, and NOT ONE of 'em ever failed to come down.

[Ixion]

'Course not, perfect safety record.

Over 100 years they've been around, and NOT ONE of 'em ever failed to come down.

Um, I don't like to disagree but the Hindenberg didn't come down. It went up.

[Ocean1]

Um, I don't like to disagree but the Hindenberg didn't come down. It went up.

Meh, it ain't up there any more is it?


Reminds me of a story about concrete submarines. Fucking good idea as it happens...

[Ixion]

Meh, it ain't up there any more is it?


Reminds me of a story about concrete submarines. Fucking good idea as it happens...

Well, yes, it is. Hydrogen, k'know. Lightest substance known. Probably what's left of the Hindenberg is spreading out past the orbit of Jupiter by now. Mixed with all the other interplanetary hydrogen of course.

[Ocean1]

Probably what's left of the Hindenberg is spreading out past the orbit of Jupiter by now.

That was just the ballast dude, all the freight is on tera firma.

[jono035]

The best point for electrification is that it doesn't really matter WHAT you use to generate the electricity, you still use it in the same way.

And even if you generate it from fossil fuels, it's still more efficient to generate at a centralised power station with careful emissions control and designed for a lot more efficiency. With good infrastructure the transmission losses are minimised so the total fuel to movement efficiency ends up favorable. Then, when you come up with some other form of generation (I was reading earlier that energy costs in some parts are at fuck all at the moment due to overflowing hydro dams, or maybe we'll finally figure out fusion) you simply supply that onto the grid, never mind converting all the engines to some other form of fuel/engine.

The other advantage is that it makes it a lot easier to do other things (less important for trains admittedly) like having brakes that recharge a capacitor bank rather than dump the energy as heat, which is where more than half the energy used by a car driving around town goes...

[bogan]

What's needed is for all you lazy youff type persons to get off y' chuffs and start inventing stuff.
Us old buggers, we've done our bit. We've invented shit loads of good useful things. Roads, trucks,airships, cars, motorbikes, petrol, pies, condoms, hamburgers, beer, wine, nachos, cell phones, crash helmets, false beards, sex,radar detectors, reticulated water supplies, democracy, spaceships, skull face masks, blow up dolls, two strokes, just about every useful thing y' can think of.

Time for you younger ones to do your bit and get on with inventing new useful stuff. Like anti gravity, matter translocation, taps that don't drip, inter galactic travel, that sort of thing. Should be easy , cos we've laid the foundations f' y'.

Just get on with it , okay.

EDIT: I left out roast dinners. We invented them too.

EDIT EDIT : Curry. that's another good thing we invented.

you guys invented two strokes, theres simply no way us yunguns can compete with that, i think may of us are disheartened and perhaps even afraid to try, but fear not ye olde citizens, im currently working on artificial intelligence at massey university, we have a great team there and should crack it any day now.

[NDORFN]

Ok ok I'm convinced.


Just one condition - show us a country with mountainous islands (like NZ) and small population, somewhere in the world where rail runs profitably. Without any support, subsidies, or protection. In fact just show us a profitable rail operation which serves any nation?

Indian Government Railways US$6.25 billion '07 - '08

That's one in the world without support, subsidies or protection. There are thousands more. Most rail companies throughout the world make annual operating profits in the billions.

In the mid 90's when Ed Burkhardt (from the Wisconsin Central, a massive American company) got involved and bought NZR and renamed it Tranzrail, they made profit. Quite alot actually. If you want to know what an efficient and profitable rail operation in a mountainous island with a small population looks like, google Tranzrail.

[Kickaha]

one train from a to b

50 trucks from a to b...

Most of the time your stuff is delivered by Truck Auckland to Chch long before the train even gets into town

Fuck the trains, they're to slow


I distinctly remember a sign (several of varying degrees of idiocy) on State Highway 27 between Matamata and Auckland (and I'm googling trying to find a picture of the freakin thing) saying something like 47% of all crashes involve trucks. But hey, statistics and full of it anyway!!

Does it say how many are actually caused by the trucks?

[James Deuce]

The best point for electrification is that it doesn't really matter WHAT you use to generate the electricity, you still use it in the same way.

And even if you generate it from fossil fuels, it's still more efficient to generate at a centralised power station with careful emissions control and designed for a lot more efficiency. With good infrastructure the transmission losses are minimised so the total fuel to movement efficiency ends up favorable. Then, when you come up with some other form of generation (I was reading earlier that energy costs in some parts are at fuck all at the moment due to overflowing hydro dams, or maybe we'll finally figure out fusion) you simply supply that onto the grid, never mind converting all the engines to some other form of fuel/engine.

The other advantage is that it makes it a lot easier to do other things (less important for trains admittedly) like having brakes that recharge a capacitor bank rather than dump the energy as heat, which is where more than half the energy used by a car driving around town goes...

We don't have a good electricity supply infrastructure (losses at 40% and up) and no political will to do anything about it. Trucks are key to our economy. Start using the trains for everything and watch supermarkets empty in a matter of days.

What about roading hubs constructed around railheads? Not there at present, so expect worse congestion if heavy vehicles are confined to a radius around current distribution infrastructure.

[Cajun]

Most of the time your stuff is delivered by Truck Auckland to Chch long before the train even gets into town

Fuck the trains, they're to slow


Trains from my work to akl, take little over 3 hours, a truck wouldn't be that much quicker

And we are moving 100's a day of containers north & south.

[The Stranger]

Load gets lost on a siding and is suspiciously found empty a week later.

To those that are all nostalgic and yearn for the days of old - and those who have trouble working out which is the red and which is the green bling button.


Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. We had rail - it was protected (of necessity) it didn't work. That's life, get over it, move on, because rail hasn't.

Still going back and trying failed paradigms again and again seems to be a big part of life in NZ of late.

[NDORFN]

To those that are all nostalgic and yearn for the days of old - and those who have trouble working out which is the red and which is the green bling button.


Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. We had rail - it was protected (of necessity) it didn't work. That's life, get over it, move on, because rail hasn't.

Still going back and trying failed paradigms again and again seems to be a big part of life in NZ of late.

You're suggesting we encourage NEW paradigms to fail?. People who support trucks don't do so with any indepth logic behind thier arguement, they just argue for trucks because they're passionate about them. It's always the same old fall-backs "NZR failed, how would we get goods from railheads onto shelves, blah, blah, blah...". Never with any scope on WHY they failed, or how road and rail actually inegrate etc... Stop worrying truck-heads... there will still be trucks for you to put posters of on your walls and draw pictures of and make models of and generally idolise. There just wont be so many of them ruling the roads whilst chewing them up, and because there's less of them, each of your beloved boner-inducing rigs will be even more special ;)

[Ixion]

NZR didn't fail. It actually succeeded very well. Thing is, the measurements of succeed and fail changed. NZR was set up to maximise the public good. It succeeded by that measure. But Rogernomics demanded that everything be measured by private profit. At which NZR (naturally) failed. Public good and private profit are almost always incompatible. Then of course Tranzrail failed the private profit test as well. Also not surprising. Rail systems are capable of generating large social dividends. They're not good at generating corporate dividends if they are competing with trucks and such like. Not because trucks are "better" than rail, but because everything about trucking exists to maximise corporate profit. Which is very seldom the case with rail. To assess whether Kiwirail succeeds or not, it is first necessary to decide whether it should be run to maximise private profit; or to maximise public good. I prefer the latter.

[Crazy Steve]

Mainly because the roads can't cope with these loads.

Damage done to the road rises exponentially with the weight. That's why in most countries there are VERY strict penalties on overloaded trucks.

1 x 55 tonne trucks will do a lot more road damage than 5 x 40 tonne trucks so the potential fuel savings may be outweighed by the cost of road repairs and the certain increase in lives lost due to poor road surfaces.

Essentially the trucks cause pretty much all the damage to the roads. Never mind bikes, your average family sedan caused feck all wear and tear in comparison.

Not true....I have driven 55Ton Semi with Quad trailers and 8wheeler semi........Dosnt do any damage...State one.

Now if you put that 55Ton on a Semi with a Tri trailer and a 6wheeler semi you might get some lifting of the road here and there...State one.

Crazy Steve..

[xwhatsit]

Essentially the trucks cause pretty much all the damage to the roads. Never mind bikes, your average family sedan caused feck all wear and tear in comparison.
Completely anecdotally, of course, but one can easily see an example of that just near where I live. If you're going north from Mangere Bridge and take the Neilson St exit, it curves around and goes back under the motorway, but not before going past little old Onehunga Port. There's trucks going in and out of there all day, to load the ships up and take cargo away.

There's a little section of road, about 200m long, which comes from the motorway and goes as far as where one must turn off the road and into the port. This strip of road -- and only this strip of road -- is the roughest, most horrible, rutted (?!), bumpy piece of crap ever. You can see the deep furrows in the road where the trucks hit the brakes before making a right-hand turn across the road.

Past the port, the road becomes a perfectly-sealed ordinary NZ road once more, free of surface imperfections.

That small section of road has been resurfaced twice in the last 18 months. Each time it takes roughly 3-4 months before it turns back into shit.


Ixion makes a good point. Public good vs. private profit... you don't charge money for hospitals. Treat rail as a public service, if you can't make it profitible. Lots of modern tech these days to reduce operating costs.

[jono035]

James Deuce: Yeah, I 100% agree that trucks aren't going anywhere in the kind of time frame that they want, but that also doesn't mean that we can't focus on where we want to go in the future, which should really be a focus on rail for centralised transport.

Wikipedia lists transmission/distribution losses in USA/UK as 7.5%, so with proper infrastructure, which we ultimately need anyway as more transport goes electric, then you'll be better off energy-usage wise straight off the bat, ignoring the extra inefficiencies of tire wear, oil consumption, brake pad consumption etc. Never mind the fact that you'll use less energy simple because rolling resistance is less, and a train doesn't have to brake/accelerate all the time.

It won't happen in the time frame they want, but it has to be the ultimate destination nonetheless.

[The Stranger]

You're suggesting we encourage NEW paradigms to fail?. People who support trucks don't do so with any indepth logic behind thier arguement, they just argue for trucks because they're passionate about them. It's always the same old fall-backs "NZR failed, how would we get goods from railheads onto shelves, blah, blah, blah...". Never with any scope on WHY they failed, or how road and rail actually inegrate etc... Stop worrying truck-heads... there will still be trucks for you to put posters of on your walls and draw pictures of and make models of and generally idolise. There just wont be so many of them ruling the roads whilst chewing them up, and because there's less of them, each of your beloved boner-inducing rigs will be even more special ;)

Wow, I'm speachless - and somewhat concerned for the people of Matamata.

What of that pile of utterly purile gibberish constitutes the "indepth logic" you accuse your opponents of lacking?

[NDORFN]

Wow, I'm speachless - and somewhat concerned for the people of Matamata.

What of that pile of utterly purile gibberish constitutes the "indepth logic" you accuse your opponents of lacking?

Read previous posts of you want an answer to that.

[The Stranger]

Read previous posts of you want an answer to that.

Faaarrrk just read your previous posts.
What a treasure trove of indepth info - for anyone doing a psychology thesis.

[NDORFN]

And yours, for anyone studying early childhood education. I'm over it dude. ...Unless you wanna have a fight about it? I'll punch your face in. Oh and, my Dad is bigger than yours.

[JMemonic]

Its not really going to alter much, why? you ask.

A vast majority of our goods are now containerised, these are at international standards which are not going to alter just for NZ 2 fully loaded 20 foot boxes are well over 55 ton and a fully loaded 40 foot is under, so it will make relatively little difference in most cases.

Someone earlier made the comment that it is possible to get a container from point A to Point B fast on a truck than on a train, I recently spoke to a chap that operates a logistics company specialising in moving goods all around NZ, he informed me that he can get goods from Auckland to Christchurch in the same time it takes for a truck on the rail system and at the same price, often though he ships goods the truck drops the box at either of the Auckland ports it gets loaded then shipped to Lyttelton, loaded to a truck and delivered to the destination, its not that much delay, and costs considerably cheaper using this method. Apparently its only a small percentage of goods that are trucked between islands now.

[jono035]

Fully loaded boxes are also vastly in the minimum I would suspect, 28 tonnes is a lot to wedge into a 20ft container...

[scracha]

Its not really going to alter much, why? you ask.

A vast majority of our goods are now containerised, these are at international standards which are not going to alter just for NZ 2 fully loaded 20 foot boxes are well over 55 ton and a fully loaded 40 foot is under, so it will make relatively little difference in most cases.


So basically our roads are made for 40 tonnes and that's partly why they're turning to $hit?

[JMemonic]

So basically our roads are made for 40 tonnes and that's partly why they're turning to $hit?

I think (and this is just my opinion) that they are barely made to that standard, I spoke to another bloke once who was a civil engineer specialising in roadway construction, he basically told me that the roads are historical, in such that they were originally built at a time when loads were lighter and more was railed, and that if you wanted to compare our roads to those in other country's we needed to take into consideration the money that has been spent in them for those projects and how it has affected the layout of the roads, (I suspect this guy was a closet motorcyclist but I never knew).

The example that he used of an internationally famous situation was route 66 in the USA, he pointed out that when the new free way went through towns literally disappeared, and the old historic roads went into to disrepair, this scenic journey was move to what is essentially a straight line of a road.

I guess he was trying to say was sure we can spend the money and get a bankrupt country (we are nearly there from what the media says), potentially the loss of some of our small towns, and boredom with straight roads over long distances, (think Canterbury plains all over NZ).

[Supermac Jr]

up the weight limit, but put on a couple of extra axles.
or put em trucks onto the tracks - voila!

[NDORFN]

up the weight limit, but put on a couple of extra axles.
or put em trucks onto the tracks - voila!

This guy for Prime Minister :clap:

[scracha]

roadway construction, he basically told me that the roads are historical, in such that they were originally built at a time when loads were lighter and more was railed, and that if you
If the Romans could make roads that lasted over 2000 years then how come Fulton Hogan can't make roads that last 2 months?

[Kickaha]

If the Romans could make roads that lasted over 2000 years then how come Fulton Hogan can't make roads that last 2 months?

Because no one will pay for them to be built like that

[jono035]

120kph capable 50T-carrying horse-drawn carriage? I think the romans didn't quite have the same design requirements...

[peasea]

If the Romans could make roads that lasted over 2000 years then how come Fulton Hogan can't make roads that last 2 months?

Coz they're witches?

[meowmix]

Haha, we dont have several hundred slaves and 60 years to build a road.
So does anyone really know if the public may make submissions on this issue? If so, where/when? I haven't seen any news on it in the papers or anything yet.

[Winston001]

Bloody Romans. They turned me into a newt.


Romanes eunt domus!

[Ixion]

that's pTerry. Unfortunate incident, all that residual magic and morphic resonance and such. Understandable mispronunciation. On the good side., I hear that pTerry is settling in really well in the vivarium.

[Winston001]

that's pTerry. Unfortunate incident, all that residual magic and morphic resonance and such. Understandable mispronunciation. On the good side., I hear that pTerry is settling in really well in the vivarium.

Thanks Ix - I got better.

No Pratchett was harmed in this thread, or witches burned, but people called romans they go the house.......:headbang:

[Elysium]

Back in June I sent an email to Stevon Joyce and just got a reply today. I would like to attach the PDF file but don't want my personnel details posted here. Anyone know how to remove words from these PDF files?

[Winston001]

Print it, cover up or cut out the personal stuff, scan to PDF and upload.

[Max Preload]

Back in June I sent an email to Stevon Joyce and just got a reply today. I would like to attach the PDF file but don't want my personnel details posted here. Anyone know how to remove words from these PDF files?

From Acrobat - File - Save As - JPG - then edit the JPG with Paintshop Pro/Photoshop/MS Paint - make as JPG again. Although it may be different for the free Acrobat Reader as I haven't used it for probably 6 years (I use Acrobat Professional). But you could still just view the PDF & use PRINT SCREEN to capture and paste into a JPG and edit that and post it.