North Auckland Line Thread

[john-ston]

There's no issue with rail freight timing on the current NAL. If a customer wants overnight delivery between Auckland and Whangarei, then KiwiRail have a good 12 hour window to achieve that, supposing a 6pm freight acceptance in Auckland, with prompt delivery first thing the next morning. The current 124/129 achieve that with hours to spare either side.

There is a big issue with rail freight timing on the current North Auckland Line; 125 for instance, is scheduled to take six hours fifty minutes to get from Whangarei to Auckland, while a truck could do the same trip in a little over four hours. Aside from some isolated examples, which freight option would you be taking? Yes, that is right, you would be using the truck.

Compare the amounts of freight that were shipped on the North Auckland Line before and after the Auckland Harbour Bridge was built, and then come back and tell me that there is nothing wrong with the existing North Auckland Line.

All current freight traffic on the NAL is non-time sensitive anyway. It matters not how long it takes to get logs from Wellsford to Kinleith when you consider they sit for days or weeks in log stacks at Wellsford before loading, then sit for weeks or months in log stacks after unloading.

So? You and I both know that the North Auckland Line isn't viable in its current state and needs more freight; the only way you are going to attract that extra freight (aside from making it feasible to fit modern containers through the NAL) is to cut down travelling times, and that cannot be done while it takes the long way around to Auckland.

Hence a heavy rail harbour crossing being unnecessary, light rail will be fine. And cheaper.

Well then I suppose you support the closure of the North Auckland Line. I must also add that you didn't consider my comments about viable rail services to Wellsford and Whangarei.

[geoff_184]

There is a big issue with rail freight timing on the current North Auckland Line; 125 for instance, is scheduled to take six hours fifty minutes to get from Whangarei to Auckland, while a truck could do the same trip in a little over four hours.

There is no issue with rail freight timing on the current NAL.

The overnight delivery that freight customers demand is already available. They have a generous late close off time in the evening at both ends of the route, with early morning delivery. There's no demand for anything any faster. 99% of freight customers want overnight delivery, and the NAL achieves that easily.

It doesn't matter if 125 takes 6 hours 50 minutes to get from Whangarei to Auckland, because its purpose is to move forestry products which sit in storage either side of the rail journey. Logs taking six weeks to get from forest to mill, will still take six weeks to get from forest to mill whether 125 takes 4 hours, 6 hours or 20 hours. That's why the logs off 125 can sit at Westfield for a day or two before going south. And do you realize the logs from Wellsford to Auckland sometimes go to Whangarei by train first, to be put on another train for Auckland?

As for regular freight - in March Toll replaced their 2.5 hour Auckland-Whangarei truck service with a 6 hour Auckland-Whangarei rail service, and the lower freight rates made possible by that move have resulted in a 300% growth in traffic in just a matter of weeks. The fast truck run was less viable than slow rail. From the customer point of view, there has been no change time-wise by shifting from the 2.5 hour truck to the 6 hour train, because all they know is they still have the same freight close off time and delivery time. But they probably do notice the cheaper rates made possible by slower bulk handling of their products. Not only could the current NAL compete with SH 1, it has proven it can do the job even better, growing traffic where the trucks could not.

Also, for most forms of railable freight, it's a myth that shorter road routes offer faster times. If you want to move 20 containers from Whangarei to Auckland, you won't find a truck company that will allocate 20 trucks for it. They'll allocate two trucks, which will spend 36-48 hours running back and forth between Whangarei and Auckland to deliever those 20 containers. If the NAL is used instead, all 20 will be moved in 5-7 hours. That's why Fonterra move all their product from Kauri to Auckland Port by train. SH 1 would be too slow for them.

You need to read up on rail economics 101.

[john-ston]

Geoff, let us look at everything piece by piece.

There is no issue with rail freight timing on the current NAL.

The overnight delivery that freight customers demand is already available. They have a generous late close off time in the evening at both ends of the route, with early morning delivery. There's no demand for anything any faster. 99% of freight customers want overnight delivery, and the NAL achieves that easily.

Geoff, if your 99% of customers want overnight delivery, then why don't I see masses of freight going by rail? I'll bet you that there are thousands of trucks that use State Highway One between Auckland and Whangarei everyday, while there are about fifty wagons going in either direction on the North Auckland Line. Even during the Burkhardt era, there was not a huge amount of rail traffic in relation to what was being shipped by road. Clearly there has to be some reason why customers prefer trucks as opposed to rail, and I would suspect that the nearly three hour time difference has something to do with it.

It doesn't matter if 125 takes 6 hours 50 minutes to get from Whangarei to Auckland, because its purpose is to move forestry products which sit in storage either side of the rail journey. Logs taking six weeks to get from forest to mill, will still take six weeks to get from forest to mill whether 125 takes 4 hours, 6 hours or 20 hours. That's why the logs off 125 can sit at Westfield for a day or two before going south. And do you realize the logs from Wellsford to Auckland sometimes go to Whangarei by train first, to be put on another train for Auckland?

So? The North Auckland Line will not survive on trees alone - in case you forgot, the North Auckland Line has been on the chopping block a number of times over the last decade. While a lengthy journey might suit trees, a lengthy journey will not suit the other sorts of freight that the North Auckland Line needs to survive.

As for regular freight - in March Toll replaced their 2.5 hour Auckland-Whangarei truck service with a 6 hour Auckland-Whangarei rail service, and the lower freight rates made possible by that move have resulted in a 300% growth in traffic in just a matter of weeks. The fast truck run was less viable than slow rail. From the customer point of view, there has been no change time-wise by shifting from the 2.5 hour truck to the 6 hour train, because all they know is they still have the same freight close off time and delivery time. But they probably do notice the cheaper rates made possible by slower bulk handling of their products. Not only could the current NAL compete with SH 1, it has proven it can do the job even better, growing traffic where the trucks could not.

I am assuming that you are talking about the Z Wagons that you refer to in your regular postings on NZ Locos. I don't think that a handful of wagons each is any great success; a negligable sum + 300% growth still equals a negligable sum. For some customers, the cheaper rates might have been suitable, but until we see an environment where the Northland system is viable on its own two feet, that will simply not be enough - if time didn't matter, then surely we would see much more railed traffic on the North Auckland Line.

Also, for most forms of railable freight, it's a myth that shorter road routes offer faster times. If you want to move 20 containers from Whangarei to Auckland, you won't find a truck company that will allocate 20 trucks for it. They'll allocate two trucks, which will spend 36-48 hours running back and forth between Whangarei and Auckland to deliever those 20 containers. If the NAL is used instead, all 20 will be moved in 5-7 hours. That's why Fonterra move all their product from Kauri to Auckland Port by train. SH 1 would be too slow for them.

Sure, Fonterra might rail all their freight, but what about the hundreds of other customers who use State Highway One? Not even Fonterra could make the North Auckland Line viable on its own, as we can see by its lack of viability

You need to read up on rail economics 101.

Geoff, the North Auckland Line doesn't have a large amount of freight using it. If your comments about time not mattering were true, then surely we would see a larger amount of freight using the North Auckland Line - that I am afraid is the truth.

[eurokiwi78]

There are a couple of issues with the current NAL times, yes they are slow but there are several things that could be done to reduce these limitations on the NAL.

-Currently there are 27 temporary speed restrictions in place from Helensville to Whangerei, ranging from 25 to 40km/h.

-The current maximum speed limit from Waitakere to Helensville is 70km/h.

If the temporary speed restrictions were fixed that would save a lot of time.
If the track between Waitakere and Helensville was raised to 80km/h that would also save a few minutes.

Couple that with the Avondale - Southdown link and I believe rail would be more than competitive with rail time wise between Northland and anywhere south of the Bombays.

All of this would cost a lot less than the difference between catering for heavy rail and light rail from Britomart to Albany.

Regarding the Makarau Tunnel I believe there are solutions that will allow high cubes thru in the not to distant future.

[geoff_184]

Clearly there has to be some reason why customers prefer trucks as opposed to rail, and I would suspect that the nearly three hour time difference has something to do with it.

If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see there is no issue with timing on the route. Most businesses have their products ready to go at the end of the business day, and expect delivery the next morning. The NAL achieves that. That's why Toll can replace a 2.5 hour truck run with a 6 hour train run, with no difference in timing. There's a lot of traffic between Auckland and Whangarei, but a lot of it is not railable. Also don't forget, KiwiRail have bugger all wagons. Your beloved privatized era saw half the fleet scrapped.

...a lengthy journey will not suit the other sorts of freight that the North Auckland Line needs to survive.

Such as? The sorts of contracts that KiwiRail want involve bulk loads. The NAL can move bulk loads faster than SH 1. You are perceiving that there is an issue, when in fact there isn't one. Rail does not compete on truck times. It competes on ability to move bulk loads faster and cheaper than trucks can achieve. The NAL does that.

If you want to spend billions making a rail route faster, then there are more needy routes than the NAL.

I don't think that a handful of wagons each is any great success

If growing a traffic from one truck load to four wagon loads, a 400% increase, in just two months, is not a success, then I don't know what is. The point of course, is that that growth came as a result of switching from a truck on SH 1 to using the NAL instead. Your viewpoint is contradicted by the facts. The benefits achieved come from bulk handling in a limited time period. Toll want to grow their pallet traffic within the confines of the overnight delivery window. Rail can still move it whether it be 1, 5 or 20 truck loads. The roading option can't do that, as the trucks have to do more and more return trips as the traffic increases, to the point where they can no longer offer overnight delivery.

Sure, Fonterra might rail all their freight, but what about the hundreds of other customers who use State Highway One?

Are they single truck loads or bulk loads? Rail competes on bulk loads.

the North Auckland Line doesn't have a large amount of freight using it. If your comments about time not mattering were true, then surely we would see a larger amount of freight using the North Auckland Line - that I am afraid is the truth.

No, that's not the truth. You don't appear to understand how rail works. Rail only carries a small proportion of single-load freight in NZ on all routes, because it can't compete on rates. The NAL is no more or less different. Rail offers cheaper rates and shorter delivery times for bulk loads, than road does. Your claim that SH 1 is faster than the NAL for the types of freight that rail competes for is simply not the case. You'll move 20 containers from Whangarei to Auckland faster on a train than you will on trucks. THAT is the truth, and THAT is what rail competes for. KiwiRail isn't interested in single contract LWL/LCL work, which is what the bulk of trucks carry. Also a lot of the trucks on SH 1 north of Auckland do not travel strictly between the cities. They go from outlying industrial sites around both cities, and a heavy component of Northland trucking is livestock, which rail no longer carts.

[john-ston]

There are a couple of issues with the current NAL times, yes they are slow but there are several things that could be done to reduce these limitations on the NAL.

-Currently there are 27 temporary speed restrictions in place from Helensville to Whangerei, ranging from 25 to 40km/h.

-The current maximum speed limit from Waitakere to Helensville is 70km/h.

If the temporary speed restrictions were fixed that would save a lot of time.
If the track between Waitakere and Helensville was raised to 80km/h that would also save a few minutes.

Couple that with the Avondale - Southdown link and I believe rail would be more than competitive with rail time wise between Northland and anywhere south of the Bombays.

All of this would cost a lot less than the difference between catering for heavy rail and light rail from Britomart to Albany.

Regarding the Makarau Tunnel I believe there are solutions that will allow high cubes thru in the not to distant future.

Eurokiwi, while those improvements might enable a little bit of time to be saved, the truth is that it will probably still be around the five hour thirty minutes to six hour mark, which is still more than the a little over four hours that trucking enables. Further to that, how much of the freight that is coming from Northland is going to Auckland and how much is going to points south of Auckland? Certainly, I agree, the longer the distance, the less of an impact that slight deviations from a straight line have (look at Adelaide to Melbourne for instance, there is a significant diversion in the Adelaide Hills, but all things considered, it is minor when the entire distance is looked at).

If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see there is no issue with timing on the route. Most businesses have their products ready to go at the end of the business day, and expect delivery the next morning. The NAL achieves that. That's why Toll can replace a 2.5 hour truck run with a 6 hour train run, with no difference in timing. There's a lot of traffic between Auckland and Whangarei, but a lot of it is not railable. Also don't forget, KiwiRail have bugger all wagons. Your beloved privatized era saw half the fleet scrapped.

Yes, well done, like all the other so called successes that have been mentioned by others, you manage to call Toll scrapping a truck run and replacing it with a handful of rail wagons a success. Unfortunately Geoff, that isn't a success - a success in my books is managing to make the North Auckland Line viable and keeping it off the chopping block.

Such as? The sorts of contracts that KiwiRail want involve bulk loads. The NAL can move bulk loads faster than SH 1. You are perceiving that there is an issue, when in fact there isn't one. Rail does not compete on truck times. It competes on ability to move bulk loads faster and cheaper than trucks can achieve. The NAL does that.

Anything that the North Auckland Line can ship that will improve its viability. The fact is that you have low loadings on the North Auckland Line, and part of that comes down to the amount of time it takes for freight to get from Whangarei to Auckland - even if it isn't an issue for some types of freight, the levels of freight where it isn't an issue is simply not enough to make the line viable.

If you want to spend billions making a rail route faster, then there are more needy routes than the NAL.

I'll agree with you there, however, I am thinking a good decade or two down the track.

If growing a traffic from one truck load to four wagon loads, a 400% increase, in just two months, is not a success, then I don't know what is. The point of course, is that that growth came as a result of switching from a truck on SH 1 to using the NAL instead. Your viewpoint is contradicted by the facts. The benefits achieved come from bulk handling in a limited time period. Toll want to grow their pallet traffic within the confines of the overnight delivery window. Rail can still move it whether it be 1, 5 or 20 truck loads. The roading option can't do that, as the trucks have to do more and more return trips as the traffic increases, to the point where they can no longer offer overnight delivery.

I have told you what I deem success to be - four wagon loads isn't going to make the difference the viability or not of the North Auckland Line; it is still far too little traffic. Not even fifty wagon loads will make a difference - we would need hundreds of wagon loads to make the North Auckland Line viable once again, and I highly doubt that Toll will be able to supply such large loads to the North Auckland Line.

Are they single truck loads or bulk loads? Rail competes on bulk loads.

No, that's not the truth. You don't appear to understand how rail works. Rail only carries a small proportion of single-load freight in NZ on all routes, because it can't compete on rates. The NAL is no more or less different. Rail offers cheaper rates and shorter delivery times for bulk loads, than road does. Your claim that SH 1 is faster than the NAL for the types of freight that rail competes for is simply not the case. You'll move 20 containers from Whangarei to Auckland faster on a train than you will on trucks. THAT is the truth, and THAT is what rail competes for. KiwiRail isn't interested in single contract LWL/LCL work, which is what the bulk of trucks carry. Also a lot of the trucks on SH 1 north of Auckland do not travel strictly between the cities. They go from outlying industrial sites around both cities, and a heavy component of Northland trucking is livestock, which rail no longer carts.

None of that matters if the North Auckland Line isn't viable. What will make the North Auckland Line viable is more traffic, and while your so-called success stories might be nice, it still doesn't provide for the significant amount of traffic that will be needed to make the North Auckland Line viable again. The times that trains take to traverse the North Auckland Line need to drop significantly, and the only way to do that is to realign the route. Of course, let us not forget that a realignment would bring a large catchment into the Auckland commuter rail network, and make regular passenger trains to Wellsford and Whangarei viable again.

[geoff_184]

john-ston wrote:
Yes, well done, like all the other so called successes that have been mentioned by others, you manage to call Toll scrapping a truck run and replacing it with a handful of rail wagons a success. Unfortunately Geoff, that isn't a success - a success in my books is managing to make the North Auckland Line viable and keeping it off the chopping block.

So you don't believe in the concept of growth? You have to start somewhere. 400% growth in 2 months is a success. You say you want rail used more, yet when it is, you call it a failure. Go figure!

john-ston wrote:
Anything that the North Auckland Line can ship that will improve its viability.
john-ston also wrote:I have told you what I deem success to be - four wagon loads isn't going to make the difference the viability or not of the North Auckland Line; it is still far too little traffic. Not even fifty wagon loads will make a difference - we would need hundreds of wagon loads to make the North Auckland Line viable once again

So the economics of rail freight being responsible for 400% growth in Toll's Auckland-Whangarei service in just two months is regarded by you on one hand as being a failure for the NAL, and on the other hand, as it contributes to the growth you say the line needs, counts as improving the line's viability? I think you need to decide which argument you wish to pursue because right now you are contradicting yourself. You don't just spontaneously gain an additional few hundred wagon loads a day. You start with one new wagon load and grow it from there. Toll's traffic is growing. It's a success because the previous truck run limited the amount that could be carried overnight, whereas rail is free from that limitation, at least until there's no more rolling stock available. KiwiRail have also got a new contract for additional logs to come out of Wellsford - 17 wagon loads a day.

Every line in NZ is grossly under utilised, the NAL being just one of many, but contrary to your claim, most, including the NAL, are viable. Additional traffic amounting to hundreds of wagons per day on each line as you say, is both unrealistic in terms of railable traffic available and wagons available.

What will make the North Auckland Line viable is more traffic, and while your so-called success stories might be nice, it still doesn't provide for the significant amount of traffic that will be needed to make the North Auckland Line viable again.

Constraints on traffic growth on the NAL are availability of railable traffic and rolling stock to carry it in. It is not constrained by time, as the current NAL is faster than SH 1 for the cartage of bulk traffic, which is all KiwiRail are interested in. That's the whole point of rail freight. It is not to act like a truck, carting LCL/LWL traffic at the speed of a truck.

Knocking an hour off 124 so that it departs Westfield at midnight instead of 2300, which is all you'll achieve by having a direct line to Tahekaroa, will make not one iota of difference to customers, who will still be dropping off their freight at 1800hrs and wanting it delivered by 0700.

I do agree that if a passenger line was built to Orewa, it should be future proofed for freight, for possible future extension to Tahekoroa, but freight wise it will do little to gain more railable freight, as the current line already caters for the requirements of such traffics. LCL/LWC loads will still go by truck if such a line existed.

[john-ston]

So you don't believe in the concept of growth? You have to start somewhere. 400% growth in 2 months is a success. You say you want rail used more, yet when it is, you call it a failure. Go figure!

I believe in the concept of growth, but reasonable growth. Going from one wagon to four wagons isn't growth as far as I am concerned. Once we start talking about entire trains, then it is a different story. Until such a day arrives, it is still a failure as far as I am concerned.

So the economics of rail freight being responsible for 400% growth in Toll's Auckland-Whangarei service in just two months is regarded by you on one hand as being a failure for the NAL, and on the other hand, as it contributes to the growth you say the line needs, counts as improving the line's viability? I think you need to decide which argument you wish to pursue because right now you are contradicting yourself. You don't just spontaneously gain an additional few hundred wagon loads a day. You start with one new wagon load and grow it from there. Toll's traffic is growing. It's a success because the previous truck run limited the amount that could be carried overnight, whereas rail is free from that limitation, at least until there's no more rolling stock available. KiwiRail have also got a new contract for additional logs to come out of Wellsford - 17 wagon loads a day.

First of all, stop misusing percentages, we have gone from one wagon to four - that isn't all that impressive. Furthermore, while it makes the line slightly less unviable, it is still unviable nevertheless - until the time that we get sufficient traffic to make the North Auckland Line viable, then I am not holding my breath.

Every line in NZ is grossly under utilised, the NAL being just one of many, but contrary to your claim, most, including the NAL, are viable. Additional traffic amounting to hundreds of wagons per day on each line as you say, is both unrealistic in terms of railable traffic available and wagons available.

I seem to recall the North Auckland Line featuring on a list of lines that were not commercially viable that was released a few months ago, and you have just admitted in that sentence that there isn't enough traffic for the North Auckland Line to become viable; I wonder why.........

Constraints on traffic growth on the NAL are availability of railable traffic and rolling stock to carry it in. It is not constrained by time, as the current NAL is faster than SH 1 for the cartage of bulk traffic, which is all KiwiRail are interested in. That's the whole point of rail freight. It is not to act like a truck, carting LCL/LWL traffic at the speed of a truck.

As well as the fact that it takes forever and a day to get from Auckland to Whangarei. If there isn't sufficient bulk freight to make the line viable, like you just admitted, then we are going to have to take on other sorts of traffic, and to do that, you need to achieve the speed of a truck.

Knocking an hour off 124 so that it departs Westfield at midnight instead of 2300, which is all you'll achieve by having a direct line to Tahekaroa, will make not one iota of difference to customers, who will still be dropping off their freight at 1800hrs and wanting it delivered by 0700.

I do agree that if a passenger line was built to Orewa, it should be future proofed for freight, for possible future extension to Tahekoroa, but freight wise it will do little to gain more railable freight, as the current line already caters for the requirements of such traffics. LCL/LWC loads will still go by truck if such a line existed.

It might not make a difference to 124, but it would make a difference to other services that could be started on the routes that could carry the loads that are needed to turn the North Auckland Line from an endangered one to a viable one, and that requires speed. The North Auckland Line was severely impacted by the opening of the Auckland Harbour Bridge, and that was because trucks gained the upper hand on rail.

[geoff_184]

john-ston wrote:
I believe in the concept of growth, but reasonable growth. Going from one wagon to four wagons isn't growth as far as I am concerned. Once we start talking about entire trains, then it is a different story. Until such a day arrives, it is still a failure as far as I am concerned.

So put simply, you believe that only the end result of efforts is the point of declaring success, and all stages of the process leading to that success are a failure. That's a very unique economics model you have there. Multiple failures equals success?

First of all, stop misusing percentages, we have gone from one wagon to four - that isn't all that impressive

Referring to 1 wagon growing to 4 wagons as 400% growth is not a misuse of percentages. It is accurate. What's more, that growth has come about in a short time frame and only came about because of the shift from road to rail, as modal shift was necessary for the growth to be sustainable. The alternative was to buy/lease more trucks and drivers which would not have lead to a rates reduction. Only rail reduces rates with more vehicles added which is why it's cheaper for bulk haulage.

Furthermore, while it makes the line slightly less unviable, it is still unviable nevertheless - until the time that we get sufficient traffic to make the North Auckland Line viable...

Eureka - an admittance that it is positive growth and not a failure. Logic therefore dictates that your desired outcome of increased tonnages therefore requires these very types of initiatives (as what Toll has done) on the NAL. You won't grow tonnage by doing nothing.

I seem to recall the North Auckland Line featuring on a list of lines that were not commercially viable that was released a few months ago...

You mean that list that keeps being raised by RTF people, cycleway people and anti-rail newspaper editors, that was originally drawn up by the people whose management of the rail network took it to the brink of collapse?

...and you have just admitted in that sentence that there isn't enough traffic for the North Auckland Line to become viable

It didn't say that at all, I said your claim that the line needs hundreds of additional wagon loads is unrealistic, because there is only so much railable tonnage out there. Most linehaul trucks in NZ cart LCL/LWL traffic, which is cheaper to move by truck than by train. Toll, Owens, Daily Freight, Mainfreight etc put some LCL/LWL traffic onto trains because they can combine multiple customer loads into the same wagons and move it all as a single contract with KiwiRail, which means that from KiwiRail's point of view it is a bulk delivery, enabling cheaper cartage rates to be offered to those freight forwarding companies. But generally speaking rail will not go near LCL/LWL traffic. It's loss making which means if you add it to the NAL, the NAL will actually become less viable.

KiwiRail have proactively been trying to get additional bulk contracts for the NAL, but there are not many out there. They recently made an attempt to get the Huntly-Portland coal traffic back, but the rates offered by the barge company that currently conveys it are extremely low.

If there isn't sufficient bulk freight to make the line viable, like you just admitted, then we are going to have to take on other sorts of traffic, and to do that, you need to achieve the speed of a truck

Again, I did not say the line is unviable. Why do you keep saying I did?

By "other traffic" you are referring to LCL/LWL freight. Rail's rates for this type of tonnage are not competitive with road, so the more of it you take on, the less viable your operation becomes. One alternative would be to introduce something like the UK's freight grant subsidy, where the government subsidizes businesses to send their freight by train instead of truck, but in the NZ political climate that would be suicide for any government to introduce. The road lobby is too powerful to ever let it happen.

Achieving the speed of a truck will not make LCL/LWL traffic any more viable for rail, as rates are set by tonnage levels, not time keeping. That's why I wrote earlier that even if you had a direct line between Auckland and Whangarei, the same LCL/LWL tonnage going by road presently, will still go by road. Rail will still only be competing on bulk contracts. That's why in areas where the railway is as direct as the road, LCL/LWL traffic is still not carted any more there than it is on the NAL, other than within the context of what those freight forwarding companies do, that I mentioned above.

It might not make a difference to 124, but it would make a difference to other services that could be started on the routes that could carry the loads that are needed to turn the North Auckland Line from an endangered one to a viable one...

Well once again I'll ask you - such as? If you aware of any bulk tonnage on roads up north that could go by rail, please list it.

...and that requires speed

Bulk tonnage contracts do not require speed. The current NAL is already the fastest way to move bulk tonnage between Auckland and Whangarei. Ships/barges are the slowest, trucks going back and forth is the second slowest, and trains are the fastest. Knocking another hour off the timetable will not change that.

The North Auckland Line was severely impacted by the opening of the Auckland Harbour Bridge

Rail tonnage levels of Auckland-Whangarei and vice versa did not change after the Harbour Bridge opened. It was a legal requirement for such tonnage to go by rail between those cities.

[eurokiwi78]

Potential Sources of Traffic for the NAL,

- Laminated Veneer Lumber Mill
80,000m3 anually roaded
200,000 tonnes anually roared to the Portland also.
Won't count jnl at kaitaia since it's not near a rail line

- Fonterra
30,000 tonnes anually roaded

- Meat
40,000 tonnes annually roaded

- Fertiliser
140,000 tonnes annually roaded

- China Clay
10 - 25,000 tonnes anually roaded

- Petroleum Products
240,000 kilolitres anually roaded

Some of these tonnages move within Northland and some to/from Northland.

[geoff_184]

Traffics within Northland probably don't count, and your list includes items from Marsden Point and items that are moved in hi-cubes.

Fonterra's output from Maungaturoto switched from rail to road after the dry store at the rail yards became substandard for current day food product handling standards.

The Kaitaia mill products, china clay and fert all used to go by rail (Kaitaia tonnage from Otiria), but that ended during the Beard error.

[geoff_184]

Interestingly, from this coming Tuesday, 125 and 129 are to be combined into a single larger train, numbered 127. Northbound, 126 and 124 are to be combined into new train 128. Expected to be triple headers, although if tonnage is too high, they'll be running 125RR and 126RR during the day.

128 and 127 will be running on the old 121 and 122 schedules, that were canned in 2005, with 128 departing Westfield during the later part of the evening subbie peak period.

[Teenage_animal]

KiwiRail have proactively been trying to get additional bulk contracts for the NAL, but there are not many out there. They recently made an attempt to get the Huntly-Portland coal traffic back, but the rates offered by the barge company that currently conveys it are extremely low.

I remember Tranz Rail doing some weekend trial runs about 8 years ago from Huntly to Portland and back, it was quite unusual to see the bulk unit Glenbrook Steel coal train running through the West Auckland suburbs (as it was the Dannevirke-Hawera milk trains when they ran to Northland)!

I thought they used the hard west coast coal at Portland rather than the soft Waikato Coal? Does the barge go around the top, or through the Cook Strait?

I wondered whether or not Portland could piggy back on, or buy supply from the Huntly Indonesian coal deliveries? The covered Genesis wagons aren't scheduled to be used on Saturdays and only on Sundays if required - one wonders whether a Saturday run north from Mt Maunganui to Portland, returning overnight might be competitive against the barge in terms of price? I must admit it always seems a bit strange the Genesis were importing coal from Indonesia - can Solid Energy not meet demand?
Teenage_animal
Ps. as for the recently introduced "Z traffic" on the NAL - you can only eat an elephant one bite at a time!

[john-ston]

So put simply, you believe that only the end result of efforts is the point of declaring success, and all stages of the process leading to that success are a failure. That's a very unique economics model you have there. Multiple failures equals success?

Not multiple failures equals success, it is more a case of getting a material result, and as far as I am concerned, four wagons a day is not material enough to call it a success.

Referring to 1 wagon growing to 4 wagons as 400% growth is not a misuse of percentages. It is accurate. What's more, that growth has come about in a short time frame and only came about because of the shift from road to rail, as modal shift was necessary for the growth to be sustainable. The alternative was to buy/lease more trucks and drivers which would not have lead to a rates reduction. Only rail reduces rates with more vehicles added which is why it's cheaper for bulk haulage.

By using the percentage, you are implying that something is impressive when clearly it is not. Little plus 400% still equals little, and requires massive percentage increases to become impressive.

Eureka - an admittance that it is positive growth and not a failure. Logic therefore dictates that your desired outcome of increased tonnages therefore requires these very types of initiatives (as what Toll has done) on the NAL. You won't grow tonnage by doing nothing.

Of course you wouldn't grow tonnage by doing nothing, that is what we are arguing about. You seem happy about the status quo where we are getting an extra four wagons a day, while I am saying that isn't enough growth - while it might be nice, it just isn't enough to keep the line open, especially now that train services on the North Auckland Line are being cut again.

You mean that list that keeps being raised by RTF people, cycleway people and anti-rail newspaper editors, that was originally drawn up by the people whose management of the rail network took it to the brink of collapse?

Yes, that list - a line doesn't become viable again until it gets enough traffic to break even, and I highly doubt that an additional four wagons has made the difference to the North Auckland Line given that services are being cut.

It didn't say that at all, I said your claim that the line needs hundreds of additional wagon loads is unrealistic, because there is only so much railable tonnage out there.

What you have essentially admitted is that there isn't enough traffic out there to make the line viable because there isn't enough railable tonnage out there.

Most linehaul trucks in NZ cart LCL/LWL traffic, which is cheaper to move by truck than by train. Toll, Owens, Daily Freight, Mainfreight etc put some LCL/LWL traffic onto trains because they can combine multiple customer loads into the same wagons and move it all as a single contract with KiwiRail, which means that from KiwiRail's point of view it is a bulk delivery, enabling cheaper cartage rates to be offered to those freight forwarding companies. But generally speaking rail will not go near LCL/LWL traffic. It's loss making which means if you add it to the NAL, the NAL will actually become less viable.

Well then make the LCL/LWL traffic bulk delivery, like you indicated can and does happen from time to time.

KiwiRail have proactively been trying to get additional bulk contracts for the NAL, but there are not many out there. They recently made an attempt to get the Huntly-Portland coal traffic back, but the rates offered by the barge company that currently conveys it are extremely low.

That isn't good enough, if you cannot get the traffic, then the line will need to be shut.

Again, I did not say the line is unviable. Why do you keep saying I did?

I stated that we would need hundreds of wagon loads of traffic to make the North Auckland Line viable, to which you responded by saying that was unrealistic. Essentially you are saying that there isn't enough traffic out there to make the line viable again, which happens to equal saying that the line is unviable.

By "other traffic" you are referring to LCL/LWL freight. Rail's rates for this type of tonnage are not competitive with road, so the more of it you take on, the less viable your operation becomes. One alternative would be to introduce something like the UK's freight grant subsidy, where the government subsidizes businesses to send their freight by train instead of truck, but in the NZ political climate that would be suicide for any government to introduce. The road lobby is too powerful to ever let it happen.

You don't need a freight grant subsidy, you need some method of making shipping such freight viable. Obviously, one method would be to make the route much faster and thus justify a higher charge, and secondly, since you indicated that consolidating LCL/LWL loads into one train constitutes bulk freight, you could use that path as well, with the individual trucks dropping off their loads at Whangarei or wherever.

Achieving the speed of a truck will not make LCL/LWL traffic any more viable for rail, as rates are set by tonnage levels, not time keeping. That's why I wrote earlier that even if you had a direct line between Auckland and Whangarei, the same LCL/LWL tonnage going by road presently, will still go by road. Rail will still only be competing on bulk contracts. That's why in areas where the railway is as direct as the road, LCL/LWL traffic is still not carted any more there than it is on the NAL, other than within the context of what those freight forwarding companies do, that I mentioned above.

However, you have four options when freighting goods. You can either freight

- by sea
- by train
- by truck
- by air

Obviously, all of those options have their rates determined by the speed of their operation, with air freight being the most expensive (and the fastest), and sea freight being the least expensive (and the slowest). Increase the speed, and you can increase the rates that are being charged.

Bulk tonnage contracts do not require speed. The current NAL is already the fastest way to move bulk tonnage between Auckland and Whangarei. Ships/barges are the slowest, trucks going back and forth is the second slowest, and trains are the fastest. Knocking another hour off the timetable will not change that.

It will not change for bulk tonnage, but like we both agree, bulk tonnage will simply not be enough to keep the North Auckland Line viable. We are seeing a service cut on the North Auckland Line, which indicates how much of a knife-edge that the line is on.

Rail tonnage levels of Auckland-Whangarei and vice versa did not change after the Harbour Bridge opened. It was a legal requirement for such tonnage to go by rail between those cities.

Maybe not Auckland to Whangarei per se, but certainly to the intermediate destinations. The 30 mile limit would have allowed for trucking to go nearly as far as Wellsford heading from Auckland, and the 40 mile limit would have allowed for trucking to go beyond Wellsford. Prior to the bridge, a truck going from Auckland to Wellsford would have had a difficult trip; after the bridge, it would have been much easier (especially once the first stretch of the Northern Motorway was completed).

[geoff_184]

The thinking behind the recent Portland coal proposal was to utilize the 25 C/CA wagons off the Mission Bush run on Saturday & Sunday.

In addition to that trial a few years back of using that rake (was it a trial, or did they need urgent delivery?), there was also a period back in 1998 of a few weeks when they used a rake of CB's from the South Island to take coal north each night on 154 (the old number for 124). Made for long and heavy trains.

[geoff_184]

Not multiple failures equals success, it is more a case of getting a material result, and as far as I am concerned, four wagons a day is not material enough to call it a success.

Any business would regard that 400% growth in such a short time to be highly successful. Your view that it is not a success is certainly not shared by Toll. Taking a nightly truck they have been running for years and turning it into four truck loads in just a few weeks, is by all measures, a successful venture.

By using the percentage, you are implying that something is impressive when clearly it is not

I'm not implying anything. Just stated the fact that the traffic has grown by 400%. Why should I describe it as something other than what it is? But I do think it is impressive. Any company would be very happy with that result.

You seem happy about the status quo where we are getting an extra four wagons a day

I haven't said it should stop at that. I've pointed to it as an example of how the NAL is more competitive than SH 1 for bulk cartage. I only mentioned it because you erroneously claimed that the NAL is not competitive with SH 1.

The reason the growth has occurred is because Toll have bundled multiple customer's freight into a single cartage contract with KiwiRail, thus they get a reduced rate that is more competitive than standard truck haulage rates. This in turn attracts more customers, which in turn lowers the rates even further. That's why growth has occurred quickly.

By comparison, individual companies moving their freight by truck don't receive the benefit of reduced rates. If you want to move twice as much, you just double your costs, because a second truck and driver will incur the same running costs as the first truck. No rates reduction, and it's much the same for freight forwarding companies when they use trucks. They can't offer cheaper rates to customers by only using road. That's why all the major trucking companies are using rail nowadays, because it enables rates reduction to customers, the more they carry.

...it just isn't enough to keep the line open, especially now that train services on the North Auckland Line are being cut again.

You talk as though you see the line as somehow on the brink of closure. I've yet to see any evidence of that, excluding the RTF type propaganda that comes out every now and again about various lines.

What do you mean cut again? Lines are not justified on train counts. Less trains does not mean less tonnage. The Midland Line only has half the trains it did 30 years ago, but its tonnage level is ten fold of what it was 30 years ago.

Having ten freights a day each consisting of a DA or DG hauling 150-300 tonnes makes for a busy NAL, but it's not all that much more tonnage than what the line sees today, especially after you exclude livestock and intermediate station traffic.

I highly doubt that an additional four wagons has made the difference to the North Auckland Line given that services are being cut.

Of course it's made a difference. It has eight more wagons a day than it did before. That's growth, and therefore a "difference".

Your view that a service cut is an indication of losing tonnage is just your assumption, and it is not correct. Tonnage on the NAL has grown with each successive year from 2004 to date. Do you regard the Midland Line as being in decline because it only has half the trains it did 30 years ago? That's quite a big service cut after all!

What you have essentially admitted is that there isn't enough traffic out there to make the line viable because there isn't enough railable tonnage out there.

Nope, the only person claiming the NAL is unviable is you (and the RTF crowd). I have pointed out that your claim of the line needing hundreds of additional wagons per day is unrealistic. That does not mean that the lack of it happening means the line isn't viable, because it is only your assumption in the first place that the line is unviable. The line is viable right now. Why do you think KiwiRail is investing in it? You are setting your own measures of what is viable and what isn't, and because the NAL doesn't stack up against those self-set measures, you declare it unviable.

Well then make the LCL/LWL traffic bulk delivery, like you indicated can and does happen from time to time.

You could only do that by convincing the business community that they should cease making their own transport arrangements, and do everything through freight forwarding companies. Good luck.

That isn't good enough, if you cannot get the traffic, then the line will need to be shut.

Why close a line that has tonnage growth, and huge potential with Marsden Point?

I stated that we would need hundreds of wagon loads of traffic to make the North Auckland Line viable, to which you responded by saying that was unrealistic. Essentially you are saying that there isn't enough traffic out there to make the line viable again

I meant it was unrealistic to expect hundreds of wagons of additional tonnage per day, not that making the line viable is unrealistic, because I've yet to see any evidence that it's unviable. It's just your assumption that it is.

You don't need a freight grant subsidy, you need some method of making shipping such freight viable...

A subsidy will do that. Nothing else will, because rail cartage rates are based on tonnage levels. That's why such traffic is no longer carried by railways throughout the western world.

...Obviously, one method would be to make the route much faster and thus justify a higher charge...

Right, so even though LCL/LWL traffic doesn't go by rail because the rates are higher than road, you want to increase the rates further, in an effort to achieve the same speed as the trucks. So same delivery time as the trucks at massively higher cost. This will cause people to use rail how?

Once again I'll repeat - the current NAL is ALREADY the fastest way to move bulk tonnage between Auckland and Whangarei. Making the line more direct will not make LCL/LWL traffic shift from road to rail any more than it does now, because the modal shift is only enabled by tonnage levels, not by time keeping.

Look at places where the railway is as direct as the road, like say Napier-Palmy, or Christchurch-Timaru. LCL/LWL still all goes by road. Why then do you think that Auckland-Whangarei will somehow attract more tonnage with a direct route, when all the existing direct rail routes around the country are no better off with LCL/LWL traffic than the NAL is? It's because freight rates are set by tonnage of the contract. Road is cheaper for LCL/LWL freight.

Obviously, all of those options have their rates determined by the speed of their operation

NO! Rail rates are set by tonnage. A truck is faster from Auckland to Wellington than a railway wagon, but the truck is cheaper. Rail rates only come down below that of trucks after you reach a certain tonnage level. Only bulk contracts are cheaper for rail. It has nothing to do with speed, and everything to do with tonnage.

It will not change for bulk tonnage, but like we both agree, bulk tonnage will simply not be enough to keep the North Auckland Line viable. We are seeing a service cut on the North Auckland Line, which indicates how much of a knife-edge that the line is on

There is no tonnage cut. I like your reference "to keep the North Auckland Line viable" - here I was under the impression that you thought it wasn't

Bulk tonnage is all you can add to the line, like all railways, as LCL/LWL traffic will not add any value to the operation and you won't attract it in the first place because even if you matched or bettered the speed of a truck, you won't match the low rates of the truck, UNLESS you combine multiple LCL/LWL customers into a single contract. That can only be done on a limited basis as you need businesses to do everything through freight logistics companies for it to work.

Maybe not Auckland to Whangarei per se, but certainly to the intermediate destinations

I don't believe that intermediate stations on the NAL would still be open and in use if the Harbour Bridge wasn't built. Every line in NZ lost those stations, and the types of traffics they generated, a long time ago.

[eurokiwi78]

Yeah my list came from a paper written by gareth Morgan advocating improvements to the nal and marsden point branch being constructed.

[millsy]

Yeah my list came from a paper written by gareth Morgan advocating improvements to the nal and marsden point branch being constructed.

Hmph. I thought Gareth Morgan would be more of an anti-rail sort of guy...

[Gibbo]

Interestingly, from this coming Tuesday, 125 and 129 are to be combined into a single larger train, numbered 127. Northbound, 126 and 124 are to be combined into new train 128. Expected to be triple headers, although if tonnage is too high, they'll be running 125RR and 126RR during the day.

128 and 127 will be running on the old 121 and 122 schedules, that were canned in 2005, with 128 departing Westfield during the later part of the evening subbie peak period.

HI,

New to the forum!

Been many years since I was familiar with NAL schedules. What times did 124 & 126 head north, and what were the times for 125 & 129 south? Are we talking a reduction to 1 service each way daily?

[Gibbo]

Interestingly, from this coming Tuesday, 125 and 129 are to be combined into a single larger train, numbered 127. Northbound, 126 and 124 are to be combined into new train 128. Expected to be triple headers, although if tonnage is too high, they'll be running 125RR and 126RR during the day.

128 and 127 will be running on the old 121 and 122 schedules, that were canned in 2005, with 128 departing Westfield during the later part of the evening subbie peak period.

HI,

New to the forum!

Been many years since I was familiar with NAL schedules. What times did 124 & 126 head north, and what were the times for 125 & 129 south? Are we talking a reduction to 1 service each way daily?

p.s. Are the wood-chips still coming south?