Why is rail such a poor relation in NZ?

[williamn]

I'm a Brit who visited NZ for the first time 18 months ago. Had a wonderful time and was lucky enough to take the Overlander from Hamilton to Wellington (it was packed by the way).
I've done a bit of reading and just wonder why rail is such a poor relation in NZ? I can see some obvious reasons - it's a large, sparsely populated country, and I can see why a long route such as the Overlander is never going to compete with other forms of transport, but I'm taken aback that cities like Hamilton, Palmerston North or Tauranga (where my friends were living and which I had to get a horrible coach to!) have little or no rail transport. They're all within a few hours of Auckland/Wellington, and cities of an equivalent size here in the UK would have a frequent service. Even in the past when they did have a service it seemed to have been just one train a day, which anyone can see isn't very attractive to travellers.

The UK is very different - a very densely populated place, but still, even in remote places in Scotland lines such as the Far North Line still have 3-4 services each day. I understand that there is no subsidy available for passenger services in NZ - why is that? I always think of NZ as being a clean green place, but the emphasis seems to be on road and air transport rather than more sustainable rail service. It's kind of shocking that cities like those mentioned above have air links to nearby cities but no train! It's pretty much unthinkable (impossible?) here to fly to Birmingham from London and rail is overtaking air on many other internal routes.

Anyway, I'm sure there are a multitude of reasons. Auckland's commuter rail appears to be doing well, so maybe that's a new start?

[geoff_184]

Put simply - everybody here drives. You can go anywhere, any time, and the low population ensures you're always free from traffic congestion, and can get to any part of the island you're in within a few hours. It's just so easy, and when cheap cars became available in the 80's, the trains were quickly abandoned by the public, and they all got canned. If you want something faster, and you don't need a car to get around at your destination, then you fly.

It does seem odd to overseas visitors, but then NZ is fairly unique in that it has congestion-free highways linking all its towns and cities, combined with a flooded cheap car import market.

[pcuser42]

Auckland's commuter rail appears to be doing well, so maybe that's a new start?

Auckland's commuter rail was pretty much a flop as recently as 2003; for the increase in usage you have numerous infrastructure improvements/rebuilds and Britomart to thank.

[Rail-it]

Auckland's commuter rail appears to be doing well, so maybe that's a new start?

Auckland's commuter rail was pretty much a flop as recently as 2003; for the increase in usage you have numerous infrastructure improvements/rebuilds and Britomart to thank.

Auckland has come a long way then to match Wellington's patronage using it's old outdated diesel trains.

Watch out Auckland when you get your EMU's.!

[Riggles]

I think the issue with NZ is that cities didn't start to get to that critical mass size where rail was needed until the Automobile was already make its show.

Much of Europe has cities that have been there for hundreds if not thousands of years as so where there through the industrial revolution meaning they they got railways and stations right from Aunt Pennies all the way to Uncle Bob's. In addition being a large land mass with lots of cities everywhere rail was a logical choice for moving freight around whereas NZ general sent all their goods overseas via ship.

Given we missed out on the large rail boom we inherently did not have rail assets spider webbing their way over the country and through all our cities. If NZ had been colonised 500 years earlier I would suspect that rail in NZ would be very different from what it is today.

[Nick R]

New Zealand once had (and still does to a large extent) a railway to every city and town of significant size except Taupo, Nelson and Queenstown, and it did have passenger services from Opua to Invercargill.

Not having the network in place isn't the reason we don't have intercity rail anymore.

[john-ston]

I suspect there are a multitude of reasons why rail is such a poor relation in New Zealand. Much of the blame needs to be laid at the feet of NZR.

Firstly, there never was a customer focus - for instance, while refreshment rooms were introduced as a war economy measure, it remained until well into the 1970s. I don't think people appreciated having to wolf down their dinner in a matter of minutes (and that assumes they were fortunate enough to even purchase their food before the train left). Another instance was with timetabling - the Auckland to New Plymouth run was at point timetabled so that it arrived in New Plymouth at around 2:30am.

Secondly, there was a failure to keep up with the times. In the early 1950s, local runs travelling from Auckland to Hamilton took as long as five hours. Some mixed services remained until the 1970s (and these were incredibly slow). Sure, back in the 1920s, when the road between Auckland and Hamilton was questionable, taking the train was the best option, but by the 1950s with the road being metalled (and concreted in decent stretches), driving was a competitive option. I suspect that had a decent number of Railmotors been purchased as early as the 1920s, then we might have seen the survival of some passenger services.

Thirdly, the purchase of the Fiats was the worst decision made by NZR (and there were plenty of them, courtesy of the bureaucrats running the show). The Fiats always had mechanical problems, and as things got worse, they were retired and services were cut. Had NZR bought something more mechanically sound, then some passenger services might have survived a lot longer (possibly to the extent that they might be around today).

Finally, I suspect the war and the aftermath had a significant negative impact on NZR. During the early stages of the war, it was a lottery as to whether someone would be able to travel anywhere or not, and in 1944, the timetable was cut significantly to conserve on coal - the old timetables were not restored until 1952, and in some cases, they never were (for instance, on the "North Line" in Auckland, the 1939 timetable was not bettered in terms of service offering until 2003). By 1952, a large number of people had started purchasing cars, and if given the choice of travelling on a slow infrequent train, or driving on a metalled road, the choice of metalled road was superior.

[Riggles]

New Zealand once had (and still does to a large extent) a railway to every city and town of significant size except Taupo, Nelson and Queenstown, and it did have passenger services from Opua to Invercargill.

Not having the network in place isn't the reason we don't have intercity rail anymore.

My point was that we didn't have very big populations back in those days and the cities were not all that large. One of the big benefits London has going for it in terms of rail is that it had a rail network weaving through it long before cars came along. That meant that when the car did come along it had no space to drive, yet the rail network already had more land and more assets than it needed.

If NZ already had train lines going all over Auckland and around the northshore as well as crossing back and forth across the harbour about 3 times back in 1910 I would suspect that rail would be used to a massive extent today.

Also part of the reason why NZ had a rail line going to quite a few of the towns, is that the towns were there to service the railway and load goods onto it. The railway was not build to the likes of Taumarnui because there were 3 people who wanted to travel to Auckland once a month but more it formed part of the route.

[john-ston]

If NZ already had train lines going all over Auckland and around the northshore as well as crossing back and forth across the harbour about 3 times back in 1910 I would suspect that rail would be used to a massive extent today.

Had the Auckland to Kingsland line been built in the mid 1880s when first planned, then rail in Auckland would have definitely been different (and probably more used). I always wonder how dogbox carriages would have looked on the New Zealand rail landscape.

[geoff_184]

...for instance, while refreshment rooms were introduced as a war economy measure, it remained until well into the 1970s.

There were still some refreshment rooms open well into the 80's, and almost into the 90's. Palmerston North and Napier stayed open until 1989, when the Bay Express started (with its own onboard servery).

[Nick R]

If NZ already had train lines going all over Auckland and around the northshore as well as crossing back and forth across the harbour about 3 times back in 1910 I would suspect that rail would be used to a massive extent today.

Also part of the reason why NZ had a rail line going to quite a few of the towns, is that the towns were there to service the railway and load goods onto it. The railway was not build to the likes of Taumarnui because there were 3 people who wanted to travel to Auckland once a month but more it formed part of the route.

Auckland did have rail lines all over the place, they just happened to be in street corridors. The shore had them too, but they fed to ferries at Northcote Point and Bayswater instead of bridges. But I'm not so sure what an urban transit system has to do with intercity rail? We don't have an urban aircraft network but we have plenty of interurban planes.

But yes, I do agree with the point that the railways were mostly about goods, not people... but the potential to carry people was there (and still is to a large extent). The real answer to the question is it was just a matter of policy and investment choices to go down the intensive intercity rail path.

[Riggles]

But I'm not so sure what an urban transit system has to do with intercity rail? We don't have an urban aircraft network but we have plenty of interurban planes.

Well as you may or may not be aware, when most people travel to another city they don't go there for the sole purpose of checking out the railway station. This is the same case for airports and why they have vast parking areas, have connecting buses and rental cars centres.

So in the case of UK and mainland Europe, due to them having vast railway networks they were established back in the yesteryear when you take you'r intercity train you can easily head off to uncle Joe's or where ever it may be. Here in NZ if you take the train you are then required to transfer to a bus or something and slowly make your way out to wherever it may be that you want to go. So given the intercity journey is about the same speed in the car in the Europe you save a lot more time once you there in comparison to over here where the car is the faster way to go.

Also this rail you're talking about on the shore and the like, I take you talking about small unconnected section or trams that run in the middle of narrow road reserves?

[Nick R]

That's exactly the same as with an airport, which was my point. We have a lot of national air travel, not much train travel. If people don't need an elaborate urban rail system to get to the airport, why would they need one to get to the intercity railway station?

[Riggles]

That's exactly the same as with an airport, which was my point. We have a lot of national air travel, not much train travel. If people don't need an elaborate urban rail system to get to the airport, why would they need one to get to the intercity railway station?

Ok so Auckland to Taurange is 2 hours by car, and if they had a direct rail line it could take about 2.5 hours by train, Auckland to Tauranga is 30mins by aircraft. If you are saving 75% of your intercity time by travelling by air you don't care about tacking another 15mins in a taxi to the office. However if you are saving no time at all doing the intercity route why would you want to spend more time and money taking a 15min taxi ride once you get there?

So not its not exactly the same as an Airport. We could go for further example of where you can fly to Christchurch in 2 hours or drive/train there in 2 days.

[geoff_184]

Ok so Auckland to Taurange is 2 hours by car, and if they had a direct rail line it could take about 2.5 hours by train, Auckland to Tauranga is 30mins by aircraft.

Auckland Tauranga is 200km, and there's no way you'll sit on 100 the whole way. More like 3hrs by car.

The flight should also include the 30 minute check in, and 15 minute check out, so including taxi rides at each end, probably at least 2hrs by air.

And check this out

http://www.flightnetwork.com/destinations/Auckland/Tauranga_Auckland.html

Cheap Flights to Auckland from Tauranga

Fly from Tauranga to Auckland, New Zealand, from $704.00

So not too sure how viable domestic air travel is for international visitors booking from overseas.

[eurokiwi78]

Auckland Tauranga is 200km, and there's no way you'll sit on 100 the whole way. More like 3hrs by car.

The flight should also include the 30 minute check in, and 15 minute check out, so including taxi rides at each end, probably at least 2hrs by air.

Depending upon which part of Auckland your journey originated the car trip could infact be quicker than shorthaul flight too. And lets not forget the shorthaul flight works to a schedule that may require somebody to arrive a few hours earlier than desired wheras with a car they can come and go as they please.

Im not a fan of shorthaul flights like Whangerei/Tauranga/Hamilton to Auckland and Wanganui/Palmerston North to Wellington. An express coach could probably even compete timewise.

[Riggles]

I did that flight a number of times for work meaning I could there and back in one day, you only need to get to the airport about 15mins before departure so that you have enough time to crab a coffee and you can pretty much walk straight off the plane into a taxi at the Tauranga end.

In any event it is significantly faster than driving or taking a train along any realistic potential rail line that could have been made.

[Nick R]

On distances like Auckland to Tauranga rail could be very competitive with air, centre to centre at least. I could leave my office here in town on foot about fifteen minutes before departure and still make the train, if it were a flight I'd realistically have to leave at least an hour before takeoff. Auckland to Tauranga would only be around 2h10 if it was the same speed as the Geelong VLine (which itself is nothing to write home about). If that were the case I'd already be in Hamilton by the time the plane was taking off.

Of course it's only a relevant comparison over shorter distances, beyond a few hundred kilometres air travel is much faster as the time cost of accessing airports and passing through them becomes an insignificant part of total travel time.

[Riggles]

For the rest of us who don't live at our office it would take about the same amount of time to get to the airport as it would take to get to the train station. As for the airport as I mentioned before getting there 15mins before take-off is more than enough time.

I'm pretty sure once you factor in the train going faster than a car but then having to make various stops on route that the time to get the the outer extent of Tauranga will be about the same.

Once there its a matter of where you want to go, if the idea of the trip was to visit the Tauranga train station you would be in luck but given it's most likely not you will need to change to another mode to get to your final destination.

If Tauranga had an established rail network this would be rather simple but given it doesn't, you could be in for a taxi ride.

[Nick R]

Well for my business trips at least I leave from the office and generally go to another office in the middle of whatever city I'm visiting.

For non work trips a station like Britomart is a hell of a lot easier to get to than the airport, for me and for anyone who doesn't live in South Auckland.