Road vs rail transport

[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.

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]

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!

[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]

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 ...

Motorcycles however ...

[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 ...


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.