Originally posted by Kiwizinho Has anyone costed things properly both ways? Back in the bad old days, I think there were rules that regulated trucking to give rail an unfair advantage but I understand there may have been a swing the other way via the trucking lobby.
My Dad used to spend a bit of time with Bob Stott, editor and publisher of Rails magazine, back in the 80s or so. Bob's constant refrain was that there was no "level playing field" for rail, which had to pay ALL of its costs, versus the trucking companies who got to use (and in some cases destroy) the roads. Doubtless there were rules, and certainly taxes, but the railways of the day had a big fat zero from government once they sold it off. Has it swung the other way? Most certainly, as evidenced by the current state of affairs. No complaints from the operator who... run as many (more) trucks as trains, and have basically not bothered with even any pretence at maintenance, forcing the government to buy the network back and invest $$$ and years to try to fix (at least the urban sections).
Originally posted by NZ_Ross One of the major issues with rail in NZ is it was built on a 'narrower' gauge to save money. This impacts the ability to carry heavy loads, and also the ability to have higher speeds. So, NZ rail is constrained by both load and speed based on some design decisions taken a very long time ago.
Meanwhile, heavier loads are allowed for the trucks despite the fairly dire effect on roads. If we were to consider the complete non-economic impact of trucks on our roads, I think we might find that rail has a substantial benefit. Rail's only contribution to "Road to Zero" will be better warning signs at some crossings to deter the idiots.
Originally posted by MarkJerling One of the key problems is the lack of rail network.
See above about lack of maintenance, lack of government support, lack of basic care by the operator for so many years. The network used to be far more extensive, but as trucks were supported more and more over the years, much of it became uneconomic. Take a look at the washout of the line north of Wairoa a few years back. If that was a road, contractors would have been working on it within hours. As it was, it took months for the government to decide that it was worth fixing
despite the economics.
Originally posted by MarkJerling Another thing is that rail, when using Diesel, is not clean and green. If we had a comprehensive electrified rail network, it would help, but we don't.
We have the North Island Main Trunk electrified from Palmy to the Tron but... I'm sensing a theme here... the operator didn't bother maintaining the electric locos so they keep breaking down so they wanted to stop using them (despite at the time they made that statement, the diesels were breaking down with regularity in the Wellington suburban network confines!) until told by the gummint to pull their fingers out and make it work.
We keep building bigger and better roads "for the good of the country" while at the same time allowing councils to tender for the cheapest possible options for public transport. If we took even 10% of what is spent on urban roads alone and put that into public transport, then we'd come out better off all round. The same can be applied to taking money out of regional roads and putting it into more efficient infrastructure. The trucks originally picked up their loads from the trains and I see no reason that can't be the case again. Intermodal transfer has come a long way since the beginning. The rail doesn't need to go
everywhere, just along the core routes. The same reasoning the line was only electrified between Palmerston North and Te Rapa.
And this brings me to a final point. If we only care about $cost, then we may as well light the planet on fire because it's cheaper.