Road vs rail transport

[R650R]

This thread is to explore the reasons why one mode is better or preferred over the other. It is not about you being cut off by a big truck or being kept awake by rail shunting yards, or being jealous that an ethnic minority (possibly with criminal backgrounds) without a tertiary education earns more money than you do. There is a lot of nostalgia around rail but this thread will explain why modern road transport takes so much freight outside of certain bulk cargoes which make sense on rail, eg coal, milk timber etc…

1) Delivery time: So many items these days are ordered at the last minute or part of a just-in-time manufacturing process. This is dictated by businesses and you the consumer. I’m sure people here will have shopped online and understand that if they purchase a needed item before 2-4pm they can have it delivered the next morning/day. The list is endless of things that fall into this category from perishable/fresh foodstuffs to parts your mechanic needs so you can have your bike/car back in time for weekend.
Often in road transport the truck that is picking up an item can direct deliver it. This reduces the need for double handling which exposes fragile items to more chance of damage, eg bike fairings or delicately engineered structures.

2) Accountability: Following on from the above with items passing through less hands it reduces the chance of theft or loss and if something does get overlanded at wrong depot usually with a couple of phone calls a dispatcher can prompt minds into where something went and recover item. The loaders and driver (often the same person) will have a personal sense of pride and work ethic in not damaging stuff.

3) Land prices: Rail needs lots land for shunting yards and for storing freight before delivery. Rail really works for customers ordering large quantities of stuff, so those customers must have warehousing space of their own to store stuff. Your local Pak n Save is a good example, looks like a lot of food on those racks but its only 3-4 days worth of sales. Imagine how much extra space would be needed if say all their non perishable stuff came by train once every couple of weeks. Imagine all the places you shop at having to have premises at least twice the size they do now to store goods.

4) Traffic: People are already moaning about courier drivers double parking, running red lights etc. Just imagine a heap of extra metro trucks running around town. Many deliveries to retail and industrial premises are often done direct early in the morning before Joe Bloggs commuter hits the streets. Most railway lines seem to cut most cities in half creating disruption too.
So are you the consumer willing to pay more to get your goods delivered slower? Are you the new entrepreneur willing to risk your new product getting to the new client late or damaged? Are you all willing to pay more in general for all goods as the increased costs get passed on? Will the monopoly provider charge fair prices if it has no competition? If you’re so concerned about environment, congestion and road maintainance will you park the car for next holiday and travel by bus or trail instead? Will you ask your online retailers to ship your product by rail instead of road?
Rail has its place for certain freight items but it is YOU the consumer/retailer/manufacturer that is driving road transport demand.

[JATZ]

My thinking...

RUC's. how many $$ does the government get from the road transport industry. Why would they invest in something that will eat into their profit from RUC's.
Also road freight is more efficient for the reasons you've already covered.

[bogan]

I've always found the saying, 'handle like it's on rails' to be a bit of a misnomer for motorcycles. As they handle pretty shit, probably all the sleepers and ballast getting in the way. Oncoming is a bit harder to deal with too...

[awa355]

I've always found the saying, 'handle like it's on rails' to be a bit of a misnomer for motorcycles. As they handle pretty shit, probably all the sleepers and ballast getting in the way. Oncoming is a bit harder to deal with too...

Ever ridden a trailbike along a railline?? iiittttsssss nnnoootttt ffuuunnnyyyy. :lol:

[tri boy]

R650R is on the money re bulk vs smaller loads.
Rail works best for large qty's of heavy items.

Light rail is an all together other matter.
Driven by pollies/commuters/councils.
Barely able to keep it's head above water.

Main trunk line, and a few others like Tauranga are bread winners.
Others like the damaged east coast are only good for adventure tourism. ie de-rate bridges to 10tonne and stick golf
carts on them.
The Whangamonata line is a good example of this.
Regional lines are loss making, but sort of needed for community ventures. MHO

[Berries]

You must have really took offence at comments about truck drivers in that other thread to post this RTF media release.

[R650R]

You must have really took offence at comments about truck drivers in that other thread to post this RTF media release.

No offence taken at other peoples lack of education... Said ages ago would start this thread after one of the other threads raised it as side issue.
I'm really interested if the trainspotters can substantiate their desire for all non perishable goods to travel by rail with a solid argument of how it would be feasible in our modern society and affordable???

I'm all for the govt subsidising rail too as it would create jobs and release some pressure on the transport industry. But I don't think it is workable for our modern society with regards to the storage and land costs issues.

As for the govt making money, the govt measures its success on our GDP and the yearly balance sheet. If rail made our roads safer and less congested and raised our environmental standing while at the same time keeping us competitive in getting our export goods to international markets surely the govt would chase that??? We'd import less diesel fuel according to the greens and that would further benefit our GDP/borrowing etc....
So if the govt isn't really interested in rail what does that tell you... If private enterprise isn't seriously interested in fronting their own money into it what does that tell you???

[bogan]

I'm really interested if the trainspotters can substantiate their desire for all non perishable goods to travel by rail with a solid argument of how it would be feasible in our modern society and affordable???

Easy, logistical rework. Cloud based freight allocations on regularly scheduled and always on time trains.

Double handling for intraNZ goods can be fixed with standard freight pallets or any other number of engineering solutions.

Land prices is a non issue if the logistics are reworked.

The govt should be subsiding rail, cos it's damn sure subsidising trucking. Rail has far higher potential for economies of scale than trucking too.

[Akzle]

most of those are society problems, not transport ones.
Why the fuck are you townies in such a hurry to achieve fuckall?

[Delerium]

Our shit roads that constantly need work on them surely doesn't help the argument of road freight over rail.

[tri boy]

The govt should be subsiding rail,

They do, and have for many years.
Solid energy was heavily subsidised on it's rail of coal forever, and yet it still sucks the kumara.

Light rail et all is subsidised by the tax payers etc.

Profitabilty and rail is only one part, as someone has already mentioned, communities should be included
even though the govt hates it.

[caspernz]

The govt should be subsiding rail, cos it's damn sure subsidising trucking. Rail has far higher potential for economies of scale than trucking too.

Curious to hear where you got the idea government is subsidising trucking? I've found it quite difficult to find clear, unbiased info to help form a current opinion on the who is subsidising who topic.

Even though I'm a career trucker, the thought of long distance road freight for stuff that could or should go by rail...yep it cracks me up.

It's been a while since I was at school, and maybe it's a bit of a European idea, but I recall that railways were never intended as a pure money making entity. The main thrust was to support business, provide employment and reduce pressure on roading infrastructure. On the basis of this 1970s economics lesson the NZ approach has been questionable I'd say.

[Moi]

... Light rail et all is subsidised by the tax payers etc...

Where does light rail exist in New Zealand?

[bogan]

Curious to hear where you got the idea government is subsidising trucking? I've found it quite difficult to find clear, unbiased info to help form a current opinion on the who is subsidising who topic.

Even though I'm a career trucker, the thought of long distance road freight for stuff that could or should go by rail...yep it cracks me up.

It's been a while since I was at school, and maybe it's a bit of a European idea, but I recall that railways were never intended as a pure money making entity. The main thrust was to support business, provide employment and reduce pressure on roading infrastructure. On the basis of this 1970s economics lesson the NZ approach has been questionable I'd say.

Road maintenance costs, RUC is pretty up there but it isn't reflective of the damage per km done by the differently weighted vehicle types. Though perhaps it is phrased wrong as it's not the govt per say, but the motorists. Then again, maybe the motorists pay the full share of age/weather/etc related road damages and truckies just pay for the damage they cause...

[awayatc]

Bit to simplistic....

argument isn't rail without road, or road without rail....
argument should be how to best use both....

and, as an island nation with Hamilton the only major city without a port what about shipping....

I mean....
trucking fuel to New Plymouth from the East coast.....

really....?

[Moi]

Bit to simplistic....

argument isn't rail without road, or road without rail....
argument should be how to best use both....

and, as an island nation with Hamilton the only major city without a port what about shipping....

I mean....
trucking fuel to New Plymouth from the East coast.....

really....?

I believe the "market place knows best" ideology would find what you suggest to be repugnant...

however, there are many who would see the merit in what you are suggesting and would support a mature discussion at governmental level...

[caspernz]

Road maintenance costs, RUC is pretty up there but it isn't reflective of the damage per km done by the differently weighted vehicle types. Though perhaps it is phrased wrong as it's not the govt per say, but the motorists. Then again, maybe the motorists pay the full share of age/weather/etc related road damages and truckies just pay for the damage they cause...

Yeah I find it tricky to find unbiased costings for the above mentioned. If say the RTF uses selective elements to claim RUCs are too high in NZ, the numbers will support that assertion but it's not the full picture. Many aspects of road transport are simply out of necessity, but on the whole I reckon too much bulk freight is moved too cheaply.


Bit to simplistic....

argument isn't rail without road, or road without rail....
argument should be how to best use both....

and, as an island nation with Hamilton the only major city without a port what about shipping....

I mean....
trucking fuel to New Plymouth from the East coast.....

really....?

Yeah trucking fuel into New Ply took a few of us by surprise when this change came up. Let's clarify though, diesel still comes into New Ply port via coastal carrier, it's only motor spirit that is trucked in. Still, running petrol from Aucks or Welly into the Naki just seems wrong. Lots of factors behind it though, when we were told the story it sort of made sense. And FYI, fuel would only come from Napier when the pressure is on elsewhere.

Coastal shipping gradually disappeared after transport deregulation didn't it? Almost supports my thoughts that trucking is too cheap...why else would we have a driver shortage?

Investment in rail, partial regulation and setting minimum rates for road transport would be the starting point for any discussion.

[R650R]

Easy, logistical rework. Cloud based freight allocations on regularly scheduled and always on time trains.

Double handling for intraNZ goods can be fixed with standard freight pallets or any other number of engineering solutions.

The govt should be subsiding rail, cos it's damn sure subsidising trucking. Rail has far higher potential for economies of scale than trucking too.

"Regular schedules" *sniggers* LOL I have mates that unload a timber train that is supposed to run a regular schedule... note the word supposed too.... like anything things will break down or run late, imagine the back log when a critical rail junction is blocked by breakdown or derailment if heaps more stuff was on rail...
Rail has always had the biggest corporate welfare of all, being govt funded from the start, then sold to private enterprise for pennies on the dollar, then they got the rail network sold to them for $1 and it still doesn't work for them...

BTW there already are many 'standard' size options to help move freight efficiently, getting customers to use them effectively is another story altogether. Also such systems usually involve ownership/leasing of a proprietary system/device hence why so many businesses use disposable/free odd size pallets and stuff or just loose packaged.

Economies of scale works when you have quick turnarounds and cover large distances. NZ is quite a small country as far as rail is concerned not like a continental crossing of USA etc...

[bogan]

"Regular schedules" *sniggers* LOL I have mates that unload a timber train that is supposed to run a regular schedule... note the word supposed too.... like anything things will break down or run late, imagine the back log when a critical rail junction is blocked by breakdown or derailment if heaps more stuff was on rail...
Rail has always had the biggest corporate welfare of all, being govt funded from the start, then sold to private enterprise for pennies on the dollar, then they got the rail network sold to them for $1 and it still doesn't work for them...

BTW there already are many 'standard' size options to help move freight efficiently, getting customers to use them effectively is another story altogether. Also such systems usually involve ownership/leasing of a proprietary system/device hence why so many businesses use disposable/free odd size pallets and stuff or just loose packaged.

Economies of scale works when you have quick turnarounds and cover large distances. NZ is quite a small country as far as rail is concerned not like a continental crossing of USA etc...

Were you asking how things could work, or how they 'work' at the moment? The post I replied to suggested the former, but your response has been all about the later.

[R650R]

Curious to hear where you got the idea government is subsidising trucking? I've found it quite difficult to find clear, unbiased info to help form a current opinion on the who is subsidising who topic.

It's been a while since I was at school, and maybe it's a bit of a European idea, but I recall that railways were never intended as a pure money making entity

Even if a large amount of trucks were removed from the roads, they would still need a fair bit of maintainance, who pays then???

Railways have been around since the horse and cart days, back then they were orders of magnitude more efficient as an option. Why if rail was/is so better were there such heavy regulation against trucks in the early days to protect rail???
One only has to look at UK and USA where they have vast well established rail networks to see that trucks are still a vital part of transport infrastructure.

[R650R]

Bit to simplistic....

argument isn't rail without road, or road without rail....
argument should be how to best use both....


Well it has to be and that's what the toy trainset club wants, its either them or the trucks, the country is not big enough for both of them they say.
This thread is about derailing the illusion that a massive shift (at whose expense?) to rail will fix our crowded poorly built roads...
Everyone likes boats despite that dirty bunker fuel they burn so their not even in the picture here. Hamilton is now a suburb of Auckland and is only 1hr 30min away from aucks and TGA.

[tri boy]

Where does light rail exist in New Zealand?

Yeah sorry bout that.
It's only in the planning stage.
My bad:baby:

[Moi]

...It's only in the planning stage...

Who and where?

[TheDemonLord]

"Regular schedules" *sniggers* LOL I have mates that unload a timber train that is supposed to run a regular schedule... note the word supposed too.... like anything things will break down or run late, imagine the back log when a critical rail junction is blocked by breakdown or derailment if heaps more stuff was on rail...
Rail has always had the biggest corporate welfare of all, being govt funded from the start, then sold to private enterprise for pennies on the dollar, then they got the rail network sold to them for $1 and it still doesn't work for them...

BTW there already are many 'standard' size options to help move freight efficiently, getting customers to use them effectively is another story altogether. Also such systems usually involve ownership/leasing of a proprietary system/device hence why so many businesses use disposable/free odd size pallets and stuff or just loose packaged.

Economies of scale works when you have quick turnarounds and cover large distances. NZ is quite a small country as far as rail is concerned not like a continental crossing of USA etc...

- Go to Europe
- See how Rail works when not run by Fuckwits
- Realise that Rail can transport both Freight AND People cross country more efficiently than roads

Not saying that Trucking is bad, or they damage the roads or anything - Rail in this country is simply underutilised to the point of almost irrelevance

[carburator]

Easy, logistical rework. Cloud based freight allocations on regularly scheduled and always on time trains.

Double handling for intraNZ goods can be fixed with standard freight pallets or any other number of engineering solutions.

Land prices is a non issue if the logistics are reworked.

The govt should be subsiding rail, cos it's damn sure subsidising trucking. Rail has far higher potential for economies of scale than trucking too.

FUCK OFF, the government subsiding trucking! what the fuck are you smoking?
I pay COF
I pay REGO and not just one unit but each trailer.
I pay RUC and not just one unit but each trailer.
I pay tax at the pump
I pay fee's for over size/over length loads
I then get some cunt called IRD wanting there share of the booty..

So yea mate, wheres my fucking hand out from the government..

[bogan]

FUCK OFF, the government subsiding trucking! what the fuck are you smoking?
I pay COF
I pay REGO and not just one unit but each trailer.
I pay RUC and not just one unit but each trailer.
I pay tax at the pump
I pay fee's for over size/over length loads
I then get some cunt called IRD wanting there share of the booty..

So yea mate, wheres my fucking hand out from the government..

I pay excise tax (petrol's RUC) for my 200kg bike, roughly $30-50 per 1000km, how much do you pay for your 20,000kg truck and 20,000kg trailer? is it a 6 grand RUC bill?

[R650R]

Not saying that Trucking is bad, or they damage the roads or anything - Rail in this country is simply underutilised to the point of almost irrelevance

It would be interesting to see a proper cost/benefit analysis of say IF....

Rail was subsidised and actively promoted to make it work. Business were given tax breaks/easy resource consents for extra storage costs of infrequent bulk delivery vs small deliveries often.

And then compare what benefit that money would have injected into the road network for everyone...

A transport manager I spoke with awhile back who is a heavy rail user alongside own trucks said there was very little difference between a container on truck from Akld to Wgtn, the main factor influencing decision was time.
Other random google searches revealed rail is on average only 25% cheaper than road transport and that prob doesn't include the local pickup and delivery at either end.

On a side note relating to the global warming, carbon tax scam, if rail were much better surely the govt would push that ....

BTW I loved the high speed rail network in UK and used it a lot along with the Tube. But will our terrain and economy every sustain that? I think our gauge is too narrow for fast trains???

[BMWST?]

No offence taken at other peoples lack of education... Said ages ago would start this thread after one of the other threads raised it as side issue.
I'm really interested if the trainspotters can substantiate their desire for all non perishable goods to travel by rail with a solid argument of how it would be feasible in our modern society and affordable???

I'm all for the govt subsidising rail too as it would create jobs and release some pressure on the transport industry. But I don't think it is workable for our modern society with regards to the storage and land costs issues.

As for the govt making money, the govt measures its success on our GDP and the yearly balance sheet. If rail made our roads safer and less congested and raised our environmental standing while at the same time keeping us competitive in getting our export goods to international markets surely the govt would chase that??? We'd import less diesel fuel according to the greens and that would further benefit our GDP/borrowing etc....
So if the govt isn't really interested in rail what does that tell you... If private enterprise isn't seriously interested in fronting their own money into it what does that tell you???
because you dont have to build your own roads.Be a different kettle of fish if you guys had the road network to build and maintain.Do you know how much a kilometre of road costs to build to support 40 or 50 ton trucks.If you had to actually fund that...Rail will be the solution again

[R650R]

I pay excise tax (petrol's RUC) for my 200kg bike, roughly $30-50 per 1000km, how much do you pay for your 20,000kg truck and 20,000kg trailer? is it a 6 grand RUC bill?

RUC is a seperate bill from fuel tax and its bought in advance of use. You now also pay for your maximum available capacity wether you've got it on or not. That's why poor tradies are getting screwed on their diesel utes and vans now...

[bogan]

Rail was subsidised and actively promoted to make it work. Business were given tax breaks/easy resource consents for extra storage costs of infrequent bulk delivery vs small deliveries often.

The two are at least partially exclusive, to make it work, it would need to be frequent; and with today's logistical capabilities there is no reason why it couldn't. The one advantage trucks have over rail is flexibility, pickup straight from source, and deliver straight to destination; special runs if needed. Proper planning can overcome both of these things, however the turkeys running NZ rail (unless much has changed in the last decade) are alas, not up to the task; which considering the changes to way freight would be handled is a massive task.

[bogan]

RUC is a seperate bill from fuel tax and its bought in advance of use. You now also pay for your maximum available capacity wether you've got it on or not. That's why poor tradies are getting screwed on their diesel utes and vans now...

For diesel it is, not for petrol (ie, that class we are talking about which subsidies trucking). Maximums and portions thereof are irrelevant to the point of whether one class subsidies another. How much would that bill be for 40T?

[TheDemonLord]

A transport manager I spoke with awhile back who is a heavy rail user alongside own trucks said there was very little difference between a container on truck from Akld to Wgtn, the main factor influencing decision was time.
Other random google searches revealed rail is on average only 25% cheaper than road transport and that prob doesn't include the local pickup and delivery at either end.

The flip side here is that in a country like NZ, you wouldn't get as many trucks clogging the open road - although that could be fixed if we had a proper motorway system



BTW I loved the high speed rail network in UK and used it a lot along with the Tube. But will our terrain and economy every sustain that? I think our gauge is too narrow for fast trains???

Terrain - Well if they can make Rail work in/through the European alps, then I am sure they COULD make it work here - although Earthquakes would be a major concern. Economy; this is where I think Rail in NZ struggles - we don't have the population density to support the 'Build it and they will come' mentality - but if we had a reliable, competitively priced high speed network between the major population centres - could it work? I believe so - it would however require us to rip out the existing Toy Gauge track and put in a proper rail network - just think Auckland to Wellington in 3 hours - through some of the best scenary in the world (Bypass Ngaruwahia and Hamilton) And it would get tourists whose only option is to drive long distance off the road - so Win Win!

[Swoop]

That's why poor tradies are getting screwed on their diesel utes and vans now...

I wonder how much they can claim back on tax, for running expenses? (our resident accountants might enlighten us?)
At least they don't get stung for fringe benefit tax, for running a car. I can see why more "business types" have moved into a road-whale though.

[awa355]

just think Auckland to Wellington in 3 hours - through some of the best scenary in the world (Bypass Ngaruwahia and Hamilton) And it would get tourists whose only option is to drive long distance off the road - so Win Win!

Are you saying the back yards of Ngaruwahia and Hamilton are not worthy of being called 'scenery'??? :eek5::eek5:

[R650R]

The one advantage trucks have over rail is flexibility, pickup straight from source, and deliver straight to destination; special runs if needed. Proper planning can overcome both of these things, however the turkeys running NZ rail (unless much has changed in the last decade) are alas, not up to the task; which considering the changes to way freight would be handled is a massive task.

Turkeys in the management area is not exclusive to Rail... the biggest obstacle to planning and regular schedules of anything is actually the clients. There may be unforeseen manufacturing delays for a variety of reasons of someone plain forgets to order something and suddenly everything is urgent or late. The flow on effect from this is the pool of freight on any given night becomes tidal, its quite hard to manage from night to the next just how many trucks are needed. Extrapolate this to multiple railheads and suddenly a lot of surplus capacity is needed to garuntee service.

The biggest change needed would be for consumers to accept goods will take a week to arrive instead of overnight, that when their car goes in for a service its off the road for a week instead of days waiting for parts etc...

[rebel1987]

i work for the railways as one of their engineers, kiwiwrail's freight is in a great place and pulls a steady profit, literally. The passenger side of things drags everything else into debt and hasn't made money in a very very long time.
Freight needs to be privately run and owned imo and the goverment can just continue to babysit the passenger service.

You also can't have rail freight without road freight, its just not viable. And our fleet is totally shit.

[Scuba_Steve]

i work for the railways as one of their engineers, kiwiwrail's freight is in a great place and pulls a steady profit, literally. The passenger side of things drags everything else into debt and hasn't made money in a very very long time.

Back in 2010 it was said the only passenger service making profit was India's, where people pack on anywhere they can incl on roof & out the sides... Passenger rail just doesn't make the cash moneys
Infact the guys I know who work for Kiwirail say we'd lose less money if we didn't charge people to ride, the tickets are merely there as "crowd control"

[bogan]

Turkeys in the management area is not exclusive to Rail... the biggest obstacle to planning and regular schedules of anything is actually the clients. There may be unforeseen manufacturing delays for a variety of reasons of someone plain forgets to order something and suddenly everything is urgent or late. The flow on effect from this is the pool of freight on any given night becomes tidal, its quite hard to manage from night to the next just how many trucks are needed. Extrapolate this to multiple railheads and suddenly a lot of surplus capacity is needed to garuntee service.

The biggest change needed would be for consumers to accept goods will take a week to arrive instead of overnight, that when their car goes in for a service its off the road for a week instead of days waiting for parts etc...

I disagree, rail is more suited to increases in bulk transport than road, just attach another freight car; same schedule. Insinuating that the best rail could do is a week for car parts is just bullshit.

[Grubber]

I disagree, rail is more suited to increases in bulk transport than road, just attach another freight car; same schedule. Insinuating that the best rail could do is a week for car parts is just bullshit.

Actually whilst i agree with you it is in fact true that they cant' shift gear fast enough.
It's not because they cant it's because they just won't or don't know how to.
Mainly a service issue to be fair. It is quite possible i'm sure but they just don't seem to be able to manage it.
My belief is that rail is a very good mover of 'bulk' freight and very efficient at it too. Pricing is good and they productivity of the actual movement is good also. Many road transport companies use them and price jobs accordingly to use them as NOT over night services but for slow moving items. It works just fine that way. We probably need both rail and road to be efficient at all aspects of shifting freight.

[bogan]

Actually whilst i agree with you it is in fact true that they cant' shift gear fast enough.
It's not because they cant it's because they just won't or don't know how to.
Mainly a service issue to be fair. It is quite possible i'm sure but they just don't seem to be able to manage it.
My belief is that rail is a very good mover of 'bulk' freight and very efficient at it too. Pricing is good and they productivity of the actual movement is good also. Many road transport companies use them and price jobs accordingly to use them as NOT over night services but for slow moving items. It works just fine that way. We probably need both rail and road to be efficient at all aspects of shifting freight.

Yeh, and I think in this case it is egg/chicken stuff, to make the changes would cost a lot, and hard to justify without earning a lot from it; but until it could prove itself it would not get much new freight.

[Delerium]

i work for the railways as one of their engineers, kiwiwrail's freight is in a great place and pulls a steady profit, literally. The passenger side of things drags everything else into debt and hasn't made money in a very very long time.
Freight needs to be privately run and owned imo and the goverment can just continue to babysit the passenger service.

You also can't have rail freight without road freight, its just not viable. And our fleet is totally shit.

The rail fleet or road fleet is shit?

[caspernz]

because you dont have to build your own roads.Be a different kettle of fish if you guys had the road network to build and maintain.Do you know how much a kilometre of road costs to build to support 40 or 50 ton trucks.If you had to actually fund that...Rail will be the solution again

This actually becomes a moot point, for if all the RUC collected would actually be spent on roading we'd have far better roads than we do now. Blame the consolidated fund...


RUC is a seperate bill from fuel tax and its bought in advance of use. You now also pay for your maximum available capacity wether you've got it on or not. That's why poor tradies are getting screwed on their diesel utes and vans now...

RUCs on light vehicles are a moot point, for the tax take from petrol is much of a muchness compared to the diesel version and RUCs. Be better if both fuels were taxed though, for driving consumption down would have positive flow on effects.


For diesel it is, not for petrol (ie, that class we are talking about which subsidies trucking). Maximums and portions thereof are irrelevant to the point of whether one class subsidies another. How much would that bill be for 40T?

My daily driver is a 50 tonne unit on 9 axles and it's at around $0.58 per km, or $580 per 1000 km. We're doing about 250,000 km per year, and there's plenty of big rigs that do this type of mileage, so how can one figure the transport industry is being subsidised on this topic? Include the RUC for the tradies diesel runabout and the overall running cost is much the same as if he was running a petrol version...so I'm puzzled how one can make the assertion that light diesel vehicles provide a subsidy to the larger ones...the numbers don't stack up??

Having just got back from an unplanned trip to the US for a funeral, the sight of stack trains stays with me, never a practical solution for NZ of course...but that's a pretty serious way to move bulk numbers of boxes.

Road vs rail will be mired in the discussion pits as long as one lobby is better connected than the other I'd say. And then the protests about Auckland Ports wanting to extend the wharf a little, I'm guessing Joe Public has a segment that's way out of touch with any reality :facepalm::innocent:

[rebel1987]

The rail fleet or road fleet is shit?

Don't know enough about the road fleet, the freight rail is bad though, the new cheap chinese loco's are prone to breakdowns and the carriges we use are getting a bit knackered, we also left it to head office to get new carriges and they got the wrong size, no shit.

[Akzle]

Don't know enough about the road fleet, the freight rail is bad though, the new cheap chinese loco's are prone to breakdowns and the carriges we use are getting a bit knackered, we also left it to head office to get new carriges and they got the wrong size, no shit.

well, the engines are german....
Even if they dont fit in the locos

[rebel1987]

well, the engines are german....
Even if they dont fit in the locos

Haha yeah i'm boggled as to how they managed to fuck these up, don't even mention the asbestos.

[bogan]

This actually becomes a moot point, for if all the RUC collected would actually be spent on roading we'd have far better roads than we do now. Blame the consolidated fund...



RUCs on light vehicles are a moot point, for the tax take from petrol is much of a muchness compared to the diesel version and RUCs. Be better if both fuels were taxed though, for driving consumption down would have positive flow on effects.



My daily driver is a 50 tonne unit on 9 axles and it's at around $0.58 per km, or $580 per 1000 km. We're doing about 250,000 km per year, and there's plenty of big rigs that do this type of mileage, so how can one figure the transport industry is being subsidised on this topic? Include the RUC for the tradies diesel runabout and the overall running cost is much the same as if he was running a petrol version...so I'm puzzled how one can make the assertion that light diesel vehicles provide a subsidy to the larger ones...the numbers don't stack up??

Having just got back from an unplanned trip to the US for a funeral, the sight of stack trains stays with me, never a practical solution for NZ of course...but that's a pretty serious way to move bulk numbers of boxes.

Road vs rail will be mired in the discussion pits as long as one lobby is better connected than the other I'd say. And then the protests about Auckland Ports wanting to extend the wharf a little, I'm guessing Joe Public has a segment that's way out of touch with any reality :facepalm::innocent:

Have you a source for that assertion?

Because it does 250,000km worth of road damage in a year. The notion of bigger vehicles being subsidised by smaller ones for road damage hinges on the fact that bigger ones do more damage; I doubt it would even be linear by weight, you'll probably find that twice the weight is 3 times the road damage; I was just using per ton/km for ease of comparison. Ie, your daily driver costs $11.6/ton.kkm while my bike costs over $200/ton.kkm, my van over $30/ton.kkm how can you possibly think bigger vehicles are not being subsidised by smaller ones?

[caspernz]

Have you a source for that assertion?

The NZTA calculator for petrol vs diesel light vehicles confirms personal research, petrol version being only a little more expensive in running costs per annum.

Because it does 250,000km worth of road damage in a year. The notion of bigger vehicles being subsidised by smaller ones for road damage hinges on the fact that bigger ones do more damage; I doubt it would even be linear by weight, you'll probably find that twice the weight is 3 times the road damage; I was just using per ton/km for ease of comparison. Ie, your daily driver costs $11.6/ton.kkm while my bike costs over $200/ton.kkm, my van over $30/ton.kkm how can you possibly think bigger vehicles are not being subsidised by smaller ones?

Interesting logic on the last bit, wouldn't think to compare it that way. Vehicle types aren't even the same yet you make a valid point on pavement wear. So if we make the RUC cost for trucks in the order of $30/ton.kkm we'll have a valid case for rail again :niceone:

[bogan]

Interesting logic on the last bit, wouldn't think to compare it that way. Vehicle types aren't even the same yet you make a valid point on pavement wear. So if we make the RUC cost for trucks in the order of $30/ton.kkm we'll have a valid case for rail again :niceone:

Sorry, I was unclear, I am questioning the assertion that RUC's gathered (inc excise tax) would more than pay for the maintenance of the roads.

Maybe, like I said above, I'm not sure the damage increase is linear with weight. In any case, when RUC reaches such a value, we'll have valid cause to claim trucking is no longer subsidised in that fashion; whether that creates a good case for rail is another story...

[Swoop]

Well, the loss-making railways are in for another shakeup.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11866318


Interesting since Auckland is throwing $$'s at the inner city loop, but commuter rail is viable in a large city.
Unfortunately the moronic labour Clarke/Cullen government emptied the piggy-bank on this rail buy-back fiasco yet did not require long distance freight to utilize it. So essentially wasted money in an attempt to prop-up its union and voter base.
Nationwide rail? What does the future hold in store for it? Freight? Tourism? Abandonment (rip up the tracks and scrap the lot)?

[TheDemonLord]

Nationwide rail? What does the future hold in store for it? Freight? Tourism?

There needs to be:

High Speed Commuter rail - imagine being able to commute from Whangarei or Hamilton to Auckland to work - using the Train.
Mass Transit rail - The Underground, the Metro - all the big cities in the world have realised that these things work and are great for getting around a city
Tourist services - Currently most major airports around the world have a Rail link - so that jetlagged visitors don't have to drive (or catch expensive Taxis) from the Airport to the inner city (where their Hotel is)
Freight - All I'm going to say is we have 3 times the number of trucks on our roads (per capita) when compared to the UK.

[FJRider]

Sorry, I was unclear, I am questioning the assertion that RUC's gathered (inc excise tax) would more than pay for the maintenance of the roads.

That assertion is merely a moot point. It would depend on where the funds gathered from RUC charges went. If it goes into the consolidated fund (as speeding [and other]fines) go ... RUC charges are not the only "provider" of funds for this account. Nor is road repairs the only subject of spending from the consolidated fund.

The downside is ... citizens of NZ do not decide priority of spending.


Maybe, like I said above, I'm not sure the damage increase is linear with weight. In any case, when RUC reaches such a value, we'll have valid cause to claim trucking is no longer subsidised in that fashion; whether that creates a good case for rail is another story...

Damage comes with an increase of use ... not necessarily with a increase in weight of vehicles (but commonly given blame for). An increase of the volume of traffic on roads not designed/expected/built for ... do not help. The "New" state highway one in the south island is a good example of this. In this case ... rail (at the moment) is not an option due to earthquake damage.

As is the the case in "Cause of accidents" ... cause of damage to roads is should not be put down to just one factor ... but to a number of factors. In the "blame game" ... just look at where the finger is pointed (and just as importantly .. at who is doing the pointing).

[GazzaH]

When the oil runs out, it would be good to know that long distances could be travelled by electric trains, leaving local/commuting to electric cars and bikes. Electric planes? No chance!

[Swoop]

There needs to be:

High Speed Commuter rail - imagine being able to commute from Whangarei or Hamilton to Auckland to work - using the Train.

I have been informed that a re-commencement of the Hamilton to Auckland rail service is planned.
If the Snailways want to get with the times, USB charging ports and wifi connectivity would bring them in line with other services.
I loved the UK trains last year.

[Voltaire]

There needs to be:

High Speed Commuter rail - imagine being able to commute from Whangarei or Hamilton to Auckland to work - using the Train.
Mass Transit rail - The Underground, the Metro - all the big cities in the world have realised that these things work and are great for getting around a city
Tourist services - Currently most major airports around the world have a Rail link - so that jetlagged visitors don't have to drive (or catch expensive Taxis) from the Airport to the inner city (where their Hotel is)
Freight - All I'm going to say is we have 3 times the number of trucks on our roads (per capita) when compared to the UK.

What sort of 'work' are we talking about?, the days of Presenteeism are numbered, I could do most of my work from a laptop anywhere.
I take the train into town rather than the car but the bike/scooter is about 1/2 the time door to door.
Other than the rush hour I imagine the Auckland trains are pretty empty.

[TheDemonLord]

What sort of 'work' are we talking about?, the days of Presenteeism are numbered, I could do most of my work from a laptop anywhere.
I take the train into town rather than the car but the bike/scooter is about 1/2 the time door to door.
Other than the rush hour I imagine the Auckland trains are pretty empty.

I love working remotely - but there are still jobs where there is either a need to be present (ie non-office work) or there is an expectation to be present (such as a service role)

All I'm going to say is: No rail link from the North shore to the City, No Rail link between the 2 of the most densely populated areas in the Country.

[russd7]

Sorry, I was unclear, I am questioning the assertion that RUC's gathered (inc excise tax) would more than pay for the maintenance of the roads..

they obviously don't now, already been two deaths on the road between Riverton and Wallacetown due to tar bleed and wet roads, add to that the seven other vehicles that have left the road since nov last year (one of those a cop).

the reason given, not enough money to repair the roads

[Voltaire]

I love working remotely - but there are still jobs where there is either a need to be present (ie non-office work) or there is an expectation to be present (such as a service role)

All I'm going to say is: No rail link from the North shore to the City, No Rail link between the 2 of the most densely populated areas in the Country.

Only way they are ever going to happen in your lifetime is if foreign firms build it as NZ firms are like watching paint dry.
Auckland transport is going to get worse before/if it gets better.
Milk, tourists and wine can only pay for so much...:crazy:

[BMWST?]

i think a lot of the long haul stuff could actually be done with more rail.Whatever the truth of funding is Rail Build and maintain the tracks,the NZ tax payer builds the roads,then we all pay to use it.There is no doubt RUC is onerous for heavy vehicles but the heavy vehicles do strss the roads.I belive some of the biggest trucks are just to big for some of our roads.The cost of RUC pales in comparison if the truckies had to build their own roads.Another poster ha alreadu pointed out that some time in the near future we will need systems other than diesel trucks to move our freight.

[Ocean1]

Damage comes with an increase of use ... not necessarily with a increase in weight of vehicles.

At least one official report put the share of maintenance costs due to damage caused by trucking at over 90%, I don't doubt that at all.


i think a lot of the long haul stuff could actually be done with more rail.

Rail for freight ceased being an option pretty much forever once they sold off all of the rail sidings, shunting yards and port facilities. Thank you NZR/RMTU. You could still deliver inter-city, but you'd have to make new facilities just out of town, where the freight would get transferred to ......

Overseas experience shows it's almost impossible to retro-fit light rail to cities that never had it, the cost involved in buying up hundreds of existing multi billion dollar city-center buildings to establish the corridor is just insurmountable. Me, I'd do it anyway, fuck the rest of the budget for a decade or two, you end up with a city that's actually useable. Elevated rail is fucking ugly, still needs bulk land for terminals and in most instances ends up well short of any effective capacity. Sydney was recently talking of dismantling theirs. Underground is the way to go I think, absolutely hideous cost but at least you get an effective solution.

[TheDemonLord]

At least one official report put the share of maintenance costs due to damage caused by trucking at over 90%, I don't doubt that at all.



Rail for freight ceased being an option pretty much forever once they sold off all of the rail sidings, shunting yards and port facilities. You could still deliver inter-city, but you'd have to make new facilities just out of town, where the freight would get transferred to ......

Overseas experience shows it's almost impossible to retro-fit light rail to cities that never had it, the cost involved in buying up hundreds of existing multi billion dollar city-center buildings to establish the corridor is just insurmountable. Me, I'd do it anyway, fuck the rest of the budget for a decade or two, you end up with a city that's actually useable. Elevated rail is fucking ugly, still needs bulk land for terminals and in most instances ends up well short of any effective capacity. Sydney was recently talking of dismantling theirs. Underground is the way to go I think, absolutely hideous cost but at least you get an effective solution.

Well, if we rounded up all the people on the Benefit and put them to work, wouldn't be so bad...

[Ocean1]

Well, if we rounded up all the people on the Benefit and put them to work, wouldn't be so bad...

Digging tunnels?

Somehow the words unemployed, solution and effective don't fit all that well into any such proposal...

[Grumph]

Rail for freight ceased being an option pretty much forever once they sold off all of the rail sidings, shunting yards and port facilities. Thank you NZR/RMTU. You could still deliver inter-city, but you'd have to make new facilities just out of town, where the freight would get transferred to ......

Don't know of a port that wan't short of room from day one...

The new "Inland Ports" set up at Rolleston by the Lyttelton Port Company, Timaru Port and Tauranga Port are exactly what you want. Consolidate containers inland and rail them to wharfside, straight under the crane. Much less trucks in ChCh and Timaru.
I have no idea why Tauranga felt the need to have a SI operation though...

[Ocean1]

Don't know of a port that wan't short of room from day one...

The new "Inland Ports" set up at Rolleston by the Lyttelton Port Company, Timaru Port and Tauranga Port are exactly what you want. Consolidate containers inland and rail them to wharfside, straight under the crane. Much less trucks in ChCh and Timaru.
I have no idea why Tauranga felt the need to have a SI operation though...

Aye, Palmy is the defacto lower NI version.

Without that depot they have to rely on competing ports for forwarding services. I know what they were paying for that, the cost was worth it.

[R650R]

At least one official report put the share of maintenance costs due to damage caused by trucking at over 90%, I don't doubt that at all.



Rail for freight ceased being an option pretty much forever once they sold off all of the rail sidings, shunting yards and port facilities. Thank you NZR/RMTU. You could still deliver inter-city, but you'd have to make new facilities just out of town, where the freight would get transferred to ......

Overseas experience shows it's almost impossible to retro-fit light rail to cities that never had it, the cost involved in buying up hundreds of existing multi billion dollar city-center buildings to establish the corridor is just insurmountable. Me, I'd do it anyway, fuck the rest of the budget for a decade or two, you end up with a city that's actually useable. Elevated rail is fucking ugly, still needs bulk land for terminals and in most instances ends up well short of any effective capacity. Sydney was recently talking of dismantling theirs. Underground is the way to go I think, absolutely hideous cost but at least you get an effective solution.

Our roads do not have the appropriate construction standard to start with, You cant blame trucks for damaging roads that are substandard when new to start with. Basically are roads are all gravel farm tracks compared to most developed countries with a token amount of bitumen and seal chip above to keep dust away. As soon as that top layer fails, its WATER that does the damage underneath.
Then on top of that you have sub standard token 'repair' jobs on the already substandard original road.

Yep rail has been left to rot, local contacts here say so much maintainance has been deferred to make the annual reports look good that its at real crisis point. But that's the govt mandating that it makes a profit instead of running it properly.
We are doomed with the price of land here though, we have a paknsave now where our city shunting yards used to be so that's never coming back.
There are several major offsite rail hubs being developed near here, the volumes still need to increase to make it viable though.

Also right now there is very little difference between rail freight and road freight pricing, even on akld to wellington direct runs. Be interesting once hybrid trucks and driverless trucks come onstream, that will smoke rail costwise.....

[R650R]

When the oil runs out, it would be good to know that long distances could be travelled by electric trains, leaving local/commuting to electric cars and bikes. Electric planes? No chance!

kiwi rail just junked their electrified lines, too much cost to maintain......

[Ocean1]

Our roads do not have the appropriate construction standard to start with, You cant blame trucks for damaging roads that are substandard when new to start with.

:laugh: Of course I can blame them, the existing roads are both good enough for cars and extraordinarily extensive given the population density, why should car users pay for capacity they don't use?

If everyone paid their way then heavy transport would either be paying almost all of the current repair bill or paying for construction of much heavier roads.

[R650R]

:laugh: Of course I can blame them, the existing roads are both good enough for cars and extraordinarily extensive given the population density, why should car users pay for capacity they don't use?

If everyone paid their way then heavy transport would either be paying almost all of the current repair bill or paying for construction of much heavier roads.

Because ALL of those cars are consumers who buy shit either locally or online and DEMAND their shit be delivered tomorrow and or that the shelves are always fill at the local stupidmarket.
I'd LOVE to see a pro rail register that everyone who hates trucks for whatever reasons signs and then their consignments are automatically diverted to rail freight. I expect the howls of wheres my shit would start withen days.

Imagine if EVERYTHING you bought cost 25% more. Cause at a guess that's what I reckon it would cost for the majority of freight to go by rail, be double handled and the real estate costs of extra storage warehouse space in small regional centres. Then there needs to be staff at all those regional storage centres manifesting and handling the freight. It would create a lot of jobs, be like things were back in the 60's etc but the extra cost would be huge.
Look at your local major chain appliance store if you buy a new washing machine or fridge/tv etc... often it has to come from a regional distributing centre in another town as they just cannot afford the storage costs of having it there right now for the customer.

Even a product my workplace receives via rail HAS to be unloaded that night by time X as the place making the stuff has no space to store it. Its uneconomic for either of the three businesses involved to pay for extra rolling stock capacity when that business could be lost or gained every couple years as contracts come up.

[Ocean1]

Because ALL of those cars are consumers who buy shit either locally or online and DEMAND their shit be delivered tomorrow and or that the shelves are always fill at the local stupidmarket.
I'd LOVE to see a pro rail register that everyone who hates trucks for whatever reasons signs and then their consignments are automatically diverted to rail freight. I expect the howls of wheres my shit would start withen days.

Imagine if EVERYTHING you bought cost 25% more. Cause at a guess that's what I reckon it would cost for the majority of freight to go by rail, be double handled and the real estate costs of extra storage warehouse space in small regional centres. Then there needs to be staff at all those regional storage centres manifesting and handling the freight. It would create a lot of jobs, be like things were back in the 60's etc but the extra cost would be huge.
Look at your local major chain appliance store if you buy a new washing machine or fridge/tv etc... often it has to come from a regional distributing centre in another town as they just cannot afford the storage costs of having it there right now for the customer.

Even a product my workplace receives via rail HAS to be unloaded that night by time X as the place making the stuff has no space to store it. Its uneconomic for either of the three businesses involved to pay for extra rolling stock capacity when that business could be lost or gained every couple years as contracts come up.

*Shrugs* If the customer wants shit delivered by truck for whatever reason then they can pay for it.

Anything else is bullshit, it not only disadvantages anyone not wanting to spend the extra but it hugely disadvantages any other freight system.

Bear in mind rail didn't collapse as an option for any overwhelming functional reason, it collapsed because NZR continually fucked up, because govt repeatedly failed to deal with that and because NZR employees stole your shit.

[oldrider]

*Shrugs* If the customer wants shit delivered by truck for whatever reason then they can pay for it.

Anything else is bullshit, it not only disadvantages anyone not wanting to spend the extra but it hugely disadvantages any other freight system.

Bear in mind rail didn't collapse as an option for any overwhelming functional reason, it collapsed because NZR continually fucked up, because govt repeatedly failed to deal with that and because NZR employees stole your shit.

True! - Railways is for all the other people to use - and they should be made to use it! :shifty:

[FJRider]

At least one official report put the share of maintenance costs due to damage caused by trucking at over 90%, I don't doubt that at all.

The officials have pretty good reasons to point the blame where it suits them ... if it hides their own failings.

All trucks have a maximum weight per axle that each truck (and trailer) is permitted to carry (and the Government gets the increased revenue as the weight increases) .... to be allowed on our roads. The more rubber on the road ... the better the (supposed) distribution of the weight.(and less [supposedly] likelihood of damage to the road) The new Heavy class are supposed to need a permit for the roads they are (supposedly) restricted to travel on ... but necessity gets permits given (the new highway one in the south island)

To reduce the axle weights allowed would help ... but unlikely due to the amount of freight that needs to be carried per day ... and the time needed to change the regulations for each class of the heavy vehicles. Not to mention lost revenue into the consolidated fund in the meanti

Increased numbers of light(er) vehicles will also damage the road over time. The more vehicles ... the shorter the time until damage is noticed. But it is easy to just blame the trucks.

In short ... ALL of the commercial vehicles on the road that meet their legal requirement to be on the road ... have just as much right to be on the road as you do on your road legal motorcycle. Regardless of anyone's personal opinion of your (or any) class/choice of vehicle.

[FJRider]

:laugh: Of course I can blame them, the existing roads are both good enough for cars and extraordinarily extensive given the population density, why should car users pay for capacity they don't use?

If everyone paid their way then heavy transport would either be paying almost all of the current repair bill or paying for construction of much heavier roads.

Should new licensing charges then be brought in ... based on vehicle weights .. ??? large SUV's might not be as popular for some people ... :shutup:

Motorcycles however ... :shifty:

[Ocean1]

The officials have pretty good reasons to point the blame where it suits them ... if it hides their own failings.

All trucks have a maximum weight per axle that each truck (and trailer) is permitted to carry (and the Government gets the increased revenue as the weight increases) .... to be allowed on our roads. The more rubber on the road ... the better the (supposed) distribution of the weight.(and less [supposedly] likelihood of damage to the road) The new Heavy class are supposed to need a permit for the roads they are (supposedly) restricted to travel on ... but necessity gets permits given (the new highway one in the south island)

To reduce the axle weights allowed would help ... but unlikely due to the amount of freight that needs to be carried per day ... and the time needed to change the regulations for each class of the heavy vehicles. Not to mention lost revenue into the consolidated fund in the meanti

Increased numbers of light(er) vehicles will also damage the road over time. The more vehicles ... the shorter the time until damage is noticed. But it is easy to just blame the trucks.

In short ... ALL of the commercial vehicles on the road that meet their legal requirement to be on the road ... have just as much right to be on the road as you do on your road legal motorcycle. Regardless of anyone's personal opinion of your (or any) class/choice of vehicle.

It was a report FOR the govt, not BY the govt. For the usual reason such reports are done: to provide expert opinion and eliminate official bias.

The numbers of axles/vehicles isn't the problem, the problem is the fucking heavy ones. And the short argument isn't any more valid than the real one, just because they meet the legal requirements to be on the road doesn't alter the fact that they pay for fuck all of the overwhelming majority of damage they do.

So not only is it easy to blame the trucks, because the evidence supports that, but it's completely correct to blame them.

[FJRider]

It was a report FOR the govt, not BY the govt. For the usual reason such reports are done: to provide expert opinion and eliminate official bias.

The numbers of axles/vehicles isn't the problem, the problem is the fucking heavy ones. And the short argument isn't any more valid than the real one, just because they meet the legal requirements to be on the road doesn't alter the fact that they pay for fuck all of the overwhelming majority of damage they do.

So not only is it easy to blame the trucks, because the evidence supports that, but it's completely correct to blame them.

If money spent on road user charges and road taxes were actually spent on improving roading ... :shifty:


One truck and trailer load of freight ... in the Heavy class would generate more tax revenue for the Government ... than all your personal vehicles combined. If they were keen to stop damage to roads ... RAIL freight would be their priority. NOT allowing HEAVIER vehicles on our roads.

[Ocean1]

One truck and trailer load of freight ... in the Heavy class would generate more tax revenue for the Government ... than all your personal vehicles combined.

Given that it causes almost 100 times the maintenance costs of any one of my personal vehicles I'd fucking hope it would be paying more than all the personal vehicles in my neighbourhood.

[Berries]

Our roads do not have the appropriate construction standard to start with, You cant blame trucks for damaging roads that are substandard when new to start with. Basically are roads are all gravel farm tracks compared to most developed countries with a token amount of bitumen and seal chip above to keep dust away. As soon as that top layer fails, its WATER that does the damage underneath.
Then on top of that you have sub standard token 'repair' jobs on the already substandard original road.

Yep rail has been left to rot, local contacts here say so much maintainance has been deferred to make the annual reports look good that its at real crisis point. But that's the govt mandating that it makes a profit instead of running it properly.
We are doomed with the price of land here though, we have a paknsave now where our city shunting yards used to be so that's never coming back.
There are several major offsite rail hubs being developed near here, the volumes still need to increase to make it viable though.

Also right now there is very little difference between rail freight and road freight pricing, even on akld to wellington direct runs. Be interesting once hybrid trucks and driverless trucks come onstream, that will smoke rail costwise.....
Pretty sure I don't need to ask what industry you work in.

10-4 good buddy.

[R650R]

Bear in mind rail didn't collapse as an option for any overwhelming functional reason, it collapsed because NZR continually fucked up, because govt repeatedly failed to deal with that and because NZR employees stole your shit.

Rail never collapsed. it was deliberately destroyed to break the union and workers rights movements. The govt of day liquidated it and sold it for pennies on the dollar.
Deborah Coddington wrote a great article once about hpw the social and welfare costs have actually cost the country more than if we had opf just kepr pouring money through the floorboards there but that's another thread of its own....

But interesting angle, lets let people use rail if they pay for it. Have absolutely everything they buy transported by rail, refund their road transport portion of income taxes and see how that bill tallies up. True user pays of a properly funded rail operation would be quite expensive.

Funny how people are happy for rail to have a govt funded welfare handout but are unhappy that a freight mode that actually pays massive taxes towards its infrastructure needs should have any help?

[R650R]

Pretty sure I don't need to ask what industry you work in.

10-4 good buddy.

don't drive on road any more, occasional off highway driving but mostly forklifts from 4.5 to 16 tonne capacity.

Its just that here in the bay we get this anti truck rhetoric all the time from a minority of rundown motel owners and populist local body politicians seeking cheap ratings boost and media coverage.
One of the best scaremongering stories our local rag published was that the new white painted museum would be turned black by truck exhaust fumes. Of course the ships in port burning low grade bunker fuel (that's the stuff that's not even good enough to use as road tar) are not to blame at all aye?
Oh the museum is still very white but the've put some fancy painted murals and stuff to cover their tracks on that false claim.....

[R650R]

If money spent on road user charges and road taxes were actually spent on improving roading ... :shifty:


One truck and trailer load of freight ... in the Heavy class would generate more tax revenue for the Government ... than all your personal vehicles combined. If they were keen to stop damage to roads ... RAIL freight would be their priority. NOT allowing HEAVIER vehicles on our roads.

And one of the biggest benefactors of bigger trucks is actually cyclists and to a degree car drivers too.

When the HPMV scheme was introduced many sections of state highway were upgraded and new hard shoulders installed. Many of these were in areas where cyclists were being passed close by all vehicle types in open road zones.
Talked to a guy in the know who sits on many road safety and engineering groups and he said the two opposing road user types needs commonly intersected in enough places to see the cost benefit ratio initiate works that might not have otherwise been done.
So next time you pull over on that nice wide hard shoulder to check your phone or put tour wet weather gear on just think hey a truck paid for that :)

[Ocean1]

Rail never collapsed. it was deliberately destroyed to break the union and workers rights movements. The govt of day liquidated it and sold it for pennies on the dollar.
Deborah Coddington wrote a great article once about hpw the social and welfare costs have actually cost the country more than if we had opf just kepr pouring money through the floorboards there but that's another thread of its own....

But interesting angle, lets let people use rail if they pay for it. Have absolutely everything they buy transported by rail, refund their road transport portion of income taxes and see how that bill tallies up. True user pays of a properly funded rail operation would be quite expensive.

Funny how people are happy for rail to have a govt funded welfare handout but are unhappy that a freight mode that actually pays massive taxes towards its infrastructure needs should have any help?

Dude, I've worked for NZR, I know exactly where the fault for it's well documented failures lie, and it's nowhere outside NZR and it's employees.

And yes, I'm a great fan of having everyone pay for what they use, what, not being an adherent of communist doctrine an' all.

[R650R]

Dude, I've worked for NZR, I know exactly where the fault for it's well documented failures lie, and it's nowhere outside NZR and it's employees.

And yes, I'm a great fan of having everyone pay for what they use, what, not being an adherent of communist doctrine an' all.

Fair enough but even as a dysfunctional asset, its still is/was a core vital strategic infrastructure asset that successive govts left to rot in the to hard basket. Had an Uncle work there as 'security' so know all to well what used to go on...

What gets me is the various pro train people probably voted a lot of these muppets into power then voted for them again.
Even if the Green party (gopd help us) got majority vote theres no way they could resurrect rail, way too much cost involved. The private sector is boosting things with off site hubs but still we are a very small bit of land and distances moved are very short compared to bigger places like china, usa and Australia etc... and look at them theys till have huge amounts of trucks too.

[R650R]

What a lot of people don't get though is if we had that utopia of mostly rail and nice big rail heads/huibs/shunting yards outside of town, is the massive amount of slightly smaller truck moves we would have.
Now a loaded up six wheeler metro truck is not terribly faster at the traffic lights or anywhere else compared to big linehaul truck, infact a good driver can do multi drop on a b train around town at suitable places faster than two little trucks, it just costs more. Anyway so your going to have say 100 big trucks off the road and stuff on trains. Now to move that stuff from train yard your going to need about 200 metro trucks to move the same freight making multiple trips all day long back and forth. 50% of their time is wasted energy running empty where as a lot of the big trucks would have delivered some of their freight direct on way in to depot.
Theres lot os little thinsg like this that people don't realise unless you've worked in transport logistics.
Also kiwi truck drivers often load and unload their own freight, take ownership for damage and security of it. Rail wouldn't be as bad as it used to for theft and damages with modern cctv but it would still happen more in that environment than in trucks I reckon.

[caspernz]

The logistics landscape changed after deregulation, can't turn back time aye? As much as this may be contrary, me being in road transport and all, plenty of stuff that gets moved by road could/should be moved by rail. The cost to the end user is what's it all about nowadays.

You make some valid points Ray, but that's mostly lost on Joe Public when they buy their cereal at the supermarket. The price is what drives it. Which way the subsidies for the mode of transport went doesn't matter at this stage. Never mind the fact that the path that cereal and its ingredients took is lost on most of Joe Public.

Low population density along with economies of scale in this country more or less doom rail, in the absence of regulation at least. Rail seems to only work for bulk commodities, when it could work well if a multi modal approach was taken further. Narrow gauge rail and low tunnels hamper that, along with that bit of water called Cook Strait.

Do lots of heavy trucks ruin the roads? No doubt about it. Take a ride on a road not frequented by large numbers of trucks, no scientific approach needed. The costing for road vs rail becomes a moot point for me, either way the taxpayer supports movement of goods from A to B.

[Bass]

Do lots of heavy trucks ruin the roads? No doubt about it. Take a ride on a road not frequented by large numbers of trucks, no scientific approach needed.

Best demo I ever saw was about 18 months after the limit was lifted to 60?? tonne. Rode in to have a look at the Tarndale slip. They had been logging in there. The side of the of the road going in was lotsa fun. The side coming out was destroyed.

[Ocean1]

Fair enough but even as a dysfunctional asset, its still is/was a core vital strategic infrastructure asset that successive govts left to rot in the to hard basket. Had an Uncle work there as 'security' so know all to well what used to go on...

How do you "fix" a dysfunctional asset without upsetting enough people to lose the next election?

Seriously, instead of sacking the lot of them and hiring people who would actually do the job they repeatedly wimped out and fell back on the 100% fail method of multiple, ongoing restructures.

And that's a generation of governments, both sides. It's the ultimate "how to completely fuck an industry" history lesson:
Strip profitable elements and flog them off to someone who will at least provide necessary services with those resources.
Offer voluntary redundancies among the remaining staff to make sure you keep only the employees who won't get jobs anywhere else.
Restructure budgets to reflect apparent revenue from individual cost centers, (which is nowhere near the actual source of the revenue).
Wait a couple of years for the shape of the abject failure to change enough to require further intervention and...
Repeat.

[pete376403]

reading a column about rail in the dompost yesterday. Something that struck me - when the gisborne line was washed out in the cyclone some years back, kiwirail didn't have the $3mill necessary to repair the line. Govt wouldn't help so the line was closed, so everything now goes by truck. Govt had no problem finding $13mill to add some overtaking lanes to the roads .

[R650R]

reading a column about rail in the dompost yesterday. Something that struck me - when the gisborne line was washed out in the cyclone some years back, kiwirail didn't have the $3mill necessary to repair the line. Govt wouldn't help so the line was closed, so everything now goes by truck. Govt had no problem finding $13mill to add some overtaking lanes to the roads .

The cost is much greater than three million, theres actually four slips/washouts to fix two of them major. At the time it was last running the train was only carting fertiliser one way and empty the other. This work is now accomplished by six truck journeys a day which probably backload with squash or tomatoes and other bulk crops.
Kiwirail is mandated by the govt to make a profit so they cant fix a line making no profit even if it only cost 1$ to fix it.
Part of the line is actually reopening later this year with couple log trains on weekends, think regional council is footing the bill.
Trouble is even if the govt does foot the bill its effectivly subsidising a select few businesses transport opertations so it opens all cans of worms and precedents.
Recently the bay picked up lot of extra work after wellington quake, the several extra trains were traffic chaos with the crews trying to get them into shunting yards. God help the greens if its any indication of what all freight on rail would look like....