Trains
John Cawston
a result of the breakup of Transrail; specifically the
southern link to Invercargill, the Geyserland Express and
the Waikato/Tauranga links. Not decided are the East Coast
links like Napier to Gisborne.
The southern link aside, I'm very familiar with the
threatened northern links.. or am I?
Thinking back over my rail experiences over 50 odd years, I
have to say that I can document such experiences a little
too well.
The last time I used rail was about 5 years ago when we
traveled from Rotorua to Mamaku.. all of about 20 km in a
steam engine. A sort of gala event run by a group of steam
enthusiasts where you traveled half an hour to Mamaku, had
some tucker, looked at a very small museum and went home.
Prior to that, I have to go back nearly 20 years to
traveling on the train from the Hutt to Wgton to work from a
mate's place for about a week. It hardly counts as I was
seconded to Wgton for that period and on every other similar
occasion, usually stayed at a motel and used my employer's
vehicle to get into town.
Then I jump back to about 1974, when as a young family, we
took advantage of NZ Rail's vain attempt to stimulate
interest in rail when they supplied a train with a buffet
car with drinks. We did that a couple of times from
Masterton to Napier for the novelty.
Now I have to go back to the almost mid 50s and very early
60s when I was a border at school.. traveling home 150 miles
each month.
And further back to a time in the mid 40's when my mother
took us to Wgton a couple of times.
Throw in some employment related rail travel in the 60s with
the Govt. and thats it.
Apart from the boarding school days, rail was always the
second or third choice and rare at that. So when I hear
about saving rail (again), I have some skepticism.
Spokesmen (in favour of rail) have admitted in the last day
or so that about 22 people use rail out of Rotorua daily,
and about 30 odd from Tauranga, and thats apparently normal
"for this time of year".
With the best will in the world and heaps of nostalgia, my
own experiences and the above figures dont translate into
some future vision of a rail renaissance. Like the perfectly
adequate horse and cart, perhaps it's time to let this
particular form of passenger transport go in many, if not
most parts of NZ.
JC
Megan Pledger
> Spokesmen (in favour of rail) have admitted in the last day
> or so that about 22 people use rail out of Rotorua daily,
> and about 30 odd from Tauranga, and thats apparently normal
> "for this time of year".
Talking to a rail guard going on 5-10 years ago I asked how many
pasengers would it take to make the Wellington-Napier service break
even. He said (IIRC) 30 people. This was after the sell off of railways.
Costs have changed since then but it's a really cheap method of
transport. And comfortable for passengers.
Long haul trips are probably no-brainers nowaday except on
Auckland-Wellington where it stops at places the airplanes don't
service. Short haul trips - from outer cities into inner cities are
where it's at i.e. Ham - Auck or PN - Well.
The main problem nowadays is that the tracks are all in the wrong places
e.g. into downtown Auckland, Hastings-PN. The former is inconvenient for
commuters and the latter takes about 50% longer than by road.
M.
Dave Frame
I feel sorry for the south - from what's been reported it sounds
as though they're losing the Southerner, while simultaneously
being shafted by the airlines. Pity.
Dave Frame
Christopher Werry
Dave Fr...@met.rdg.ac.uk
But we are told that whatever "the market" does is by
definition good, and will lead us all to happiness
and greater social benefit, so it must be for the
best, right?
Having exoricised the need for wanton sarcasm,
I wonder if anyone can confirm a rumour a heard a while
back. Does Fay/Richwhite own a chunk of the railways,
as well as a majority of the trucking business
in either the Nth or Sth Island? I heard it
argued by someone that shutting down the railways
was actually in their interest, since this would
force freight business to trucks, which they
had a lock on.
ccw
Philip Crookes
"John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3B39E001...@ihug.co.nz...
> It seems we are to lose some passenger services on trains as
> a result of the breakup of Transrail; specifically the
> southern link to Invercargill, the Geyserland Express and
> the Waikato/Tauranga links. Not decided are the East Coast
> links like Napier to Gisborne.
It's hard to imagine how the management at TranzRail has managed to
trivialise what could and should be profitable services.
I rode the Rotorua train a couple of years ago. It's set up as a cheerful
tourist excursion - you have the impression that you're going there for the
ride rather than to get to the other end.
You turn up at Auckland Central Station - abandoned & deserted & you can't
get into the main terminal building any more, and make your way through a
dreary underpass to a platform where the two trains of the day are sitting,
ready to head off in opposite directions.
The Rotorua train looked to me like a Seventies diesel multiple unit that
trundled rather than flew over the track. The scenery along the way is
partly interesting - the service would pay if it were advertised and
promoted, & the trains were faster, more frequent and didn't turf all the
passengers out at a wooden hut somewhere near Ngongotaha. Presumably because
some marketroid decided that the capital value of the downtown station would
look better in the company balance sheet...
If they can't make a train betwen Hamilton & Auckland pay, they're not
trying. But we knew that. The way you make it pay is to make it faster and
more attractive than the road alternative. However long it takes to drive,
the train should be at least 15 minutes faster, with convenient departure &
arrival times, & with decent food & drink on board.
I've seen little or no promotion or marketing for train travel in NZ, either
within NZ or for visitors in our main overseas markets. The overnight
Auckland-Wellington service is crying out to be sold as a sleeper train (and
yes, you can have sleeping cars on 3ft 6in tracks - Queensland does it every
day.) That there is no passenger train service to the Bay of Islands is an
astonishment. Properly organised, you could fill up at least one, probably
more, Pullman cars every day of the week.
If we really meant it about being clean & green, one of the first things we
would do would be to spend money on decent train services instead of
encouraging ever more traffic onto the road system. Some of the electric
trains on the Wellington suburban lines were built in 1948! And the people
in charge of the shameful shambles that is Auckland public transport
planning ought to be put in the stocks and pelted with rotten durian fruit
for being so wrong.
But then, we don't really mean it about being clean & green, do we? We just
like the sound of it & hope the tourists won't look too closely at what's
really happening as the Business Round table presses for yet another chunk
of town to be paved over with freeways.
Philip
Miche
<phi...@crookes.org> wrote:
> I've seen little or no promotion or marketing for train travel in NZ, either
> within NZ or for visitors in our main overseas markets. The overnight
> Auckland-Wellington service is crying out to be sold as a sleeper train (and
> yes, you can have sleeping cars on 3ft 6in tracks - Queensland does it every
> day.)
Should be even easier on our track, which I believe (but will have to
check with my friendly rail boffin) to be 4ft 8.5 in.
BTW I'm with you Phil -- I do rather get the impression that passenger
rail transport has been deliberately run into the ground.
Miche
--
"... in the physics of the heart, distance is relative;
it is time that is absolute."
- Lois McMaster Bujold, _Shards of Honor_
Brian Harmer
wrote:
>In article <9hd6hq$dcsp3$1...@ID-89693.news.dfncis.de>, "Philip Crookes"
><phi...@crookes.org> wrote:
>
>> I've seen little or no promotion or marketing for train travel in NZ, either
>> within NZ or for visitors in our main overseas markets. The overnight
>> Auckland-Wellington service is crying out to be sold as a sleeper train (and
>> yes, you can have sleeping cars on 3ft 6in tracks - Queensland does it every
>> day.)
>Should be even easier on our track, which I believe (but will have to
>check with my friendly rail boffin) to be 4ft 8.5 in.
No our tracks are 3'-6" but unlike Queensland, it traverses much more
rugged country which is seismically unstable. The N.I. main trunk
South of Taihape seems to get dumped on by slips a couple of times
each winter.
We did have sleeping cars. What the sleeping cars lacked was
passengers willing to pay the price for a journey which they can now
do for a very similar price in just under one tenth of the time.
>
>BTW I'm with you Phil -- I do rather get the impression that passenger
>rail transport has been deliberately run into the ground.
I'm not entirely convinced of that. The ill fated Silver Star trains
(1970s) cost an absolute fortune yet even then, passengers were being
wooed by cheaper airline tickets and the convenience of getting there
so much quicker by air.
Once the trade falls below a certain level, it becomes irresponsible
to invest in capital equipment that may never break even ... you need
only look at the opprobrium being heaped on the Qantas NZ directors to
see what I mean.
Daniel Silva
news:3B39E001...@ihug.co.nz...
> With the best will in the world and heaps of nostalgia, my
> own experiences and the above figures dont translate into
> some future vision of a rail renaissance. Like the perfectly
> adequate horse and cart, perhaps it's time to let this
> particular form of passenger transport go in many, if not
> most parts of NZ.
Good points. In the past couple of days I have heard all manner of
'experts', from Greens co-leader Rod Donald, to Napier's Mayor, to some
resident lefties right here, all saying that the service could be made
profitable, if only it was run properly. Unfortunately, none of these
gentlemen* seems to be prepared to put their hands in their own pockets, buy
the services (that are up for sale) and show the professionals that they
were wrong when they concluded that the services are uneconomic. No, their
agenda, as usual, is to try to commandeer other people's money to subsidise
their personal preferences.
* I use the term gentlemen advisedly. Have you noticed that most rail
enthusiasts are middle-aged men? According to Owen McShane, their fixation
with toy trains is just a fantasy about shiny tubes plunging into dark
tunnels.
Patrick Ford
> According to Owen McShane, their
> fixation
> with toy trains is just a fantasy about shiny tubes plunging into dark
> tunnels.
Owen McShane needs to accept ownership of his neuroses before he can have
any chance of achieving any sort of recovery. I don't believe there is
anything to be gained by transferring his guilt for whatever it was he did
to himself in private as a child to all other men, or even to other men
who want to play with trains.
--
--
My domain contains .co, not .com as appears in the header.
Patrick Ford Auckland, Aotearoa (New Zealand)
tricia
> Daniel Silva wrote:
>
> > According to Owen McShane, their
>> fixation
>> with toy trains is just a fantasy about shiny tubes plunging into dark
>> tunnels.
>
> Owen McShane needs to accept ownership of his neuroses before he can have
> any chance of achieving any sort of recovery. I don't believe there is
> anything to be gained by transferring his guilt for whatever it was he did
> to himself in private as a child to all other men, or even to other men
> who want to play with trains.
Hells teeth
*shakes head*
tricia
John Cawston
> John Cawston wrote:
> > Spokesmen (in favour of rail) have admitted in the last day
> > or so that about 22 people use rail out of Rotorua daily,
> > and about 30 odd from Tauranga, and thats apparently normal
> > "for this time of year".
>
> Talking to a rail guard going on 5-10 years ago I asked how many
> pasengers would it take to make the Wellington-Napier service break
> even. He said (IIRC) 30 people.
I.e., nearly a full bus load. A form of transport similar in price and
infinitely more versatile with relatively few overheads. Why would you
upgrade rail against such obviously superior transport?
> This was after the sell off of railways.
> Costs have changed since then but it's a really cheap method of
> transport. And comfortable for passengers.
There I agree.
>
>
> Long haul trips are probably no-brainers nowaday except on
> Auckland-Wellington where it stops at places the airplanes don't
> service. Short haul trips - from outer cities into inner cities are
> where it's at i.e. Ham - Auck or PN - Well.
>
> The main problem nowadays is that the tracks are all in the wrong places
> e.g. into downtown Auckland, Hastings-PN. The former is inconvenient for
> commuters and the latter takes about 50% longer than by road.
Yep. It'd be a brave CEO/minister who would commit big money to make rail
more convenient for a few busloads of people.
JC
John Cawston
The freight business remains unchanged. The "market" has determined that rail
has a place in shifting bulk goods. An example is the burgeoning dairy business
which has used rail to open up the Central and Southern Hawkes Bay (Dannevirk
type places) to dairy conversion. This would have been uneconomic without rail
shifting milk daily from there to Hawera where the giant dairy factory is
situated.
As for the Fay Richwhite theory, I think it unlikely and as I've mentioned,
irrelevant given that rail freight remains relatively unaffected.
JC
John Cawston
I fear you trivialize the desire of any private operator to make a profit from
rail passenger services. They simply cant.. and neither could the Govt. for most
of a century.
JC
Brian Harmer
wrote:
>Megan Pledger wrote:
>> Talking to a rail guard going on 5-10 years ago I asked how many
>> pasengers would it take to make the Wellington-Napier service break
>> even. He said (IIRC) 30 people.
>I.e., nearly a full bus load. A form of transport similar in price and
>infinitely more versatile with relatively few overheads. Why would you
>upgrade rail against such obviously superior transport?
I am really worried. I chose to watch the Gnomes Show tonight ...
admittedly the gnome was away and Susan Woods was in charge, but she
interviewed Richard Prebble, Rod Donald and the CEO of West Coast
Railway about the Greens' idea of subsidising the trains. It seems
that Rod is willing to spend up to $10 million of our money to support
this private enterprise venture so that they can allow about 60 people
a day to take a train instead of a bus.
It is neither full moon, nor is there hair on the backs of my hands,
yet I found Prebs actually made sense. Hmmm ... maybe that is Rod
Donald's true purpose in life ... to make Prebble look good :-(
Brian Harmer
<phi...@crookes.org> wrote:
>The Rotorua train looked to me like a Seventies diesel multiple unit that
>trundled rather than flew over the track.
Bullseye! The train is nothing more or less than the old Silver Fern
railcar of 1970 vintage.
(snip)
>But then, we don't really mean it about being clean & green, do we? We just
>like the sound of it & hope the tourists won't look too closely at what's
>really happening as the Business Round table presses for yet another chunk
>of town to be paved over with freeways.
Um ... Philip have you examined a railway bed at ground zero? How you
regard the oily brown coating of oil, and brake dust as being in some
way cleaner and greener than the roadway is beyond me. The fact is
that both the roadway and the railway exist already (in terms of their
land occupancy) and though neither is especially clean or green, each
has a comparatively efficient mode of utilisation, the one for the
movement of bulk goods, and the other for "packetised" shifting of
people and smaller quantities of goods.
I think the clean green debate is a red herring.
d'ugh
John Cawston wrote:
>
> With the best will in the world and heaps of nostalgia, my
> own experiences and the above figures dont translate into
> some future vision of a rail renaissance. Like the perfectly
> adequate horse and cart, perhaps it's time to let this
> particular form of passenger transport go in many, if not
> most parts of NZ.
> JC
I have read the thread so far (though my server seems to lag somewhat)
and I have to say I agree that travelling by rail in NZ was never
convenient nor especially cheap. While at Akl Uni I lived near to a
station and it offered a morning service that was more expensive and
slower than the "flyer" bus (by about 25 minutes) and dumped me at
central station - further away than the bus got me.
Currently in Liverpool I can catch hourly trains to London for a normal
book in advance price of 20 pounds return (or current special deal 10).
The scheduled journey time is 2 3/4 hours. Usually it is closer to 3
1/2. (Once the train departs that is, never mind the customary 30 min
late departure. The bus for the same journey has a scheduled time of 5
hours and costs 20 pounds. The train usually has at least 200
passengers, many of whom have paid higher prices for not booking ahead.
[Indeed, the business class return is 221 pounds. A return flight to NZ
is about 540 pounds].
Obviously econmy of scale plays a large part here and I don't see a
simple way out for NZ except to re-nationalise the railways and begin
imposing horrendously punative taxes on cars *if* there is a rail or bus
alternative. How this could be done is tricky but not impossible. Then
use the cash to build more lines and eventually get rid of cars.
Yeah right a bus alternative. As you can see the plan is as well though
out as that of any of any other political party.
[Actually re-nationalisation of telecom and tranz rail were important
campaign promises of mine. I figured if we did that and then re-sold
them and re-nationalised a few times, then we would get sufficient cash
to pay off the overseas debt and build a wall around NZ to keep trashy
foreign goods away].
d'ugh
John Cawston
> John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3B39E001...@ihug.co.nz...
>
> > With the best will in the world and heaps of nostalgia, my
> > own experiences and the above figures dont translate into
> > some future vision of a rail renaissance. Like the perfectly
> > adequate horse and cart, perhaps it's time to let this
> > particular form of passenger transport go in many, if not
> > most parts of NZ.
>
> Good points. In the past couple of days I have heard all manner of
> 'experts', from Greens co-leader Rod Donald, to Napier's Mayor, to some
> resident lefties right here, all saying that the service could be made
> profitable, if only it was run properly. Unfortunately, none of these
> gentlemen* seems to be prepared to put their hands in their own pockets, buy
> the services (that are up for sale) and show the professionals that they
> were wrong when they concluded that the services are uneconomic. No, their
> agenda, as usual, is to try to commandeer other people's money to subsidise
> their personal preferences.
Cartage and passenger travel by coach effectively died back in the 1920's and
30s. My grandfather was a general carrier back then with his horses and dray.
Several uncles were in the game as well, carting wool by horse drawn vehicle
over the old Inland Patea route, down to Taihape, through the passes in the
Kaweka ranges, over the Gentle Annie and Bonny Mary and down to the port of
Napier.
Rail killed that way of life and flourished through to the 1950s. But then the
roads were good enough and the trucks powerful enough to take it on with a
service infinitely more versatile. Rail attacked back with the 150 mile rule
that forbade truckers to cart more than that distance, but that too collapsed
about 20 years ago.
Nobody thinks back with nostalgia to the horse and buggy days and wants to
reintroduce them, mainly because those days have passed out of memory, and the
battle between the trucks, rail and horses of then is forgotten.
But I remember because I came from a family that retains the horse to this day
as a way of life. The usage is different, but I well remember the family
discussions of those days and saw at first hand how the farm bike gradually
prevailed over the horse on the lambing beats and general farm work.
So there is a remnant nostalgia there for me and the loss of a way of life that
I would have cheerfully gone back to, but times change.
Rail is like that for people now. They grew up with it and the decline has
occurred in an age of mass communication, hence it is a noisy death. But when we
can measure its passenger usage in Hawkes Bay, Bay of Plenty and Waikato in
terms of a few busloads (three for HB and BOP), then die it must.
>
>
> * I use the term gentlemen advisedly. Have you noticed that most rail
> enthusiasts are middle-aged men? According to Owen McShane, their fixation
> with toy trains is just a fantasy about shiny tubes plunging into dark
> tunnels.
And they dont shrink when they come out :)
JC
Dave Frame
> John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>
Whole bunch of them at Oxford station this morning. The
summer seems to bring them out, which, given seasonal
variations in libidos in cold countries, would seem to
provide further evidence for Mr McShane's theory.
Always ready with data,
Dr Frame
Ashley
"Dave Frame" <da...@met.rdg.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3B3AF910...@met.rdg.ac.uk...
> Daniel Silva wrote:
> > * I use the term gentlemen advisedly. Have you noticed that most rail
> > enthusiasts are middle-aged men? According to Owen McShane, their
fixation
> > with toy trains is just a fantasy about shiny tubes plunging into dark
> > tunnels.
>
> Whole bunch of them at Oxford station this morning. The
> summer seems to bring them out, which, given seasonal
> variations in libidos in cold countries, would seem to
> provide further evidence for Mr McShane's theory.
>
> Always ready with data,
> Dr Frame
ROTFL!!
And exactly how are you going to collect it, Dr Frame?
Daniel Silva
> Rail killed that way of life and flourished through to the 1950s. But then
the
> roads were good enough and the trucks powerful enough to take it on with a
> service infinitely more versatile. Rail attacked back with the 150 mile
rule
> that forbade truckers to cart more than that distance, but that too
collapsed
> about 20 years ago.
Allow me to reminisce. Late seventies, I was clerk in a customs clearance
office. One of our clients (Ward Hill Ltd) importer bulldozers from Japan
(Komatsu). He was based in Rotorua. I arranged to have an imported machine
sent down by rail, as the law required. Machine was slightly larger than the
tunnel. Result: an almighty mess. Replacement machine arrived three weeks
later, I sent it down by road. Traffic cop booked truckie for not having a
permit and I found myself in Court. Truckie got off the charge on the
grounds of abhorrence to absurdity and I became an anglophile. And an
economic rationalist.
Dave Frame
> "Dave Frame" <da...@met.rdg.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > Daniel Silva wrote:
>
> > > * I use the term gentlemen advisedly. Have you noticed that most rail
> > > enthusiasts are middle-aged men? According to Owen McShane, their
> fixation
> > > with toy trains is just a fantasy about shiny tubes plunging into dark
> > > tunnels.
> >
> > Whole bunch of them at Oxford station this morning. The
> > summer seems to bring them out, which, given seasonal
> > variations in libidos in cold countries, would seem to
> > provide further evidence for Mr McShane's theory.
> >
> > Always ready with data,
> > Dr Frame
>
> ROTFL!!
>
> And exactly how are you going to collect it, Dr Frame?
Data on the trainspotters should be easy to collect - just
stand on a platform, stare at them and jot down details,
he way they do with trains.
Data on the implications of climate on libido is much more
complicated and will form my next application to funding
agencies. [Sociable science rather than social science...]
I propose an EU-funded three year mission with nubile
young collaborators in Sweden, Norway, Spain and Italy.
Funding would include basic salary, travel grant incl.
cheap deals at expensive resorts, yacht, continuous supply
of wine, chocolate, flowers and other lures.
Dave Frame
Brian Harmer
<dan...@NOSPAMsilva.co.nz> wrote:
>Allow me to reminisce. Late seventies, I was clerk in a customs clearance
>office. One of our clients (Ward Hill Ltd) importer bulldozers from Japan
>(Komatsu). He was based in Rotorua. I arranged to have an imported machine
>sent down by rail, as the law required. Machine was slightly larger than the
>tunnel. Result: an almighty mess. Replacement machine arrived three weeks
>later, I sent it down by road. Traffic cop booked truckie for not having a
>permit and I found myself in Court. Truckie got off the charge on the
>grounds of abhorrence to absurdity and I became an anglophile. And an
>economic rationalist.
Pure curiosity, Daniel but a couple of points occur to me:
(1) NZR's loading guages were and are widely known and publicised, Who
allowed an oversize object to be loaded onto a wagon? Who allowed that
train to leave the yard? Who was prosecuted for the "almighty mess"?
If no-one, why not?
(2) After proof by experiment that the bloody thing did not fit, why
was a permit not obtained prior to the road trip?
Don''t get me wrong, I think the old regs were indeed an absurdity,
and an economic mill wheel around the neck. I just think your story
reveals more than one absurdity.
Ashley
> Ashley wrote:
>
> > And exactly how are you going to collect it, Dr Frame?
>
> Data on the trainspotters should be easy to collect - just
> stand on a platform, stare at them and jot down details,
> he way they do with trains.
> Data on the implications of climate on libido is much more
> complicated
Yes, this was the bit that fascinated me :-)
and will form my next application to funding
> agencies. [Sociable science rather than social science...]
> I propose an EU-funded three year mission with nubile
> young collaborators in Sweden, Norway, Spain and Italy.
> Funding would include basic salary, travel grant incl.
> cheap deals at expensive resorts, yacht, continuous supply
> of wine, chocolate, flowers and other lures.
And were I in charge of dolling out EU fund to worthy research projects,
this is indeed one I would look upon favourably!!
Daniel Silva
news:mo2njtcolqf2tabfs...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 22:20:00 +1200, "Daniel Silva"
> <dan...@NOSPAMsilva.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >Allow me to reminisce. Late seventies, I was clerk in a customs clearance
> >office. One of our clients (Ward Hill Ltd) importer bulldozers from Japan
> >(Komatsu). He was based in Rotorua. I arranged to have an imported
machine
> >sent down by rail, as the law required. Machine was slightly larger than
the
> >tunnel. Result: an almighty mess. Replacement machine arrived three weeks
> >later, I sent it down by road. Traffic cop booked truckie for not having
a
> >permit and I found myself in Court. Truckie got off the charge on the
> >grounds of abhorrence to absurdity and I became an anglophile. And an
> >economic rationalist.
>
> Pure curiosity, Daniel but a couple of points occur to me:
> (1) NZR's loading guages were and are widely known and publicised, Who
> allowed an oversize object to be loaded onto a wagon? Who allowed that
> train to leave the yard? Who was prosecuted for the "almighty mess"?
> If no-one, why not?
As far as I can recall, no one was prossecuted. I don't know whether there
was any internal discipline action. The importer claimed on his insurance.
> (2) After proof by experiment that the bloody thing did not fit, why
> was a permit not obtained prior to the road trip?
The importer's excuse is that he didn't think one was needed, for that very
reason (not very likely, IMO). I suspect that he just overlooked applying
for one. The carrier should not have accepted the cargo either, but bear in
mind that, in those days, deliberate breaches of the Regulations were not
infrequent.
> Don''t get me wrong, I think the old regs were indeed an absurdity,
> and an economic mill wheel around the neck. I just think your story
> reveals more than one absurdity.
Indeed.
Philip Crookes
"Brian Harmer" <brian....@vuw.ac.nz> wrote
>
> We did have sleeping cars. What the sleeping cars lacked was
> passengers willing to pay the price for a journey which they can now
> do for a very similar price in just under one tenth of the time.
I thought the only sleeping cars on NZR were the ones they built for the
Queen in 1953.
But sleeping cars can cater for two distinct markets: up-market
business/tourist travellers who want the luxury, and can combine the trip
with the ovbernight accommodation to get perceived good value. They'll want
a proper dining car too, an enterprise that can be hugely profitable. On the
Auckland/Wellington run, it oughtto be possible to offer a late evening
departure from each city (between 10pm & midnight) and an early morning
(8 - 8.30 am ) arrival at the other end.
No drive out to the airport, no waiting around for planes, no overbooking -
just close your eyes & you're there.
Alternatively the other end of the market buys couchettes, those stacked
lightly upholstered benches, more comfortable than sleeping in a chair,
however reclining it may be. Those passengers will patronise an on-board
bistro & brekky bar.. well, they do when they come to Europe.
> 70s) cost an absolute fortune yet even then, passengers were being
> wooed by cheaper airline tickets and the convenience of getting there
> so much quicker by air.
Add an hour and a half coming & going to the airports, the mandatory half
hour minimum check in time, plus flight time. Itall adds up to about half a
business day. Which is why an overnight alternative could find a market.
Mind you, it would want to be a lot better than the miserable 'Southern
Cross' we rode between Melbourne & Sydney. I am fairly convinced that there
was an extra set of wheels just beneath our compartment that was at right
angles to all the others, the train banged and crashed around on the track
all night, and breakfast was an unpleasantness in a cardboard box. As a
regular user of German railways InterCity Night service, I was unimpressed.
Although I do know that Germans these days say the rhythm of the rails as
the trains go along at 250 km/h is saying 'Eschede, Eschede, Eschede...'
Philip
Philip Crookes
"Brian Harmer" <brian....@vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> Um ... Philip have you examined a railway bed at ground zero? How you
> regard the oily brown coating of oil, and brake dust as being in some
> way cleaner and greener than the roadway is beyond me.
Deposits from the trains always fall in the same place, and don't get
disturbed. The same deposits - and much worse - get dropped on SH1 but are
stirred around and shifted by the wheels of other traffic - unlike the
trains the wheels of road traffic don't always run on exactly the same
place. So road deposits are more likely to be found on the verges, where
they're not so visible.
It's also true that steel wheel on steel track is more efficient (uses less
energy to shift a given load) than rubber tyre on tarmac.
In terms of passengers, the railway is very good at moving reasonably large
numbers of people all at the same time. If there are really only 30
people/day wanting to travel from Auckland to Hamilton or Rotorua, then they
are more efficiently (and 'green-ly') carried in a reasonably new bus. My
point is that on any given day there are probably four or five hundred, and
that the railway simply hasn't tried to develop that market.
Philip
(who used to go to school on a very very old train that had a notice in it
from the Midland & Manawatu Railway Company (or some such) warning against
spitting on the floors or mats (what mats?) & advising all train passengers
not to ascend to the carriage roof while the train was in motion. There was
always a temptation to leap out at some insignificant station like
Meadowbank & shimmy up the side of the carriage, and then nip down at the
first toot from the diesel getting ready to leave...)
Brian Harmer
<phi...@crookes.org> wrote:
>
>"Brian Harmer" <brian....@vuw.ac.nz> wrote
>
>>
>> We did have sleeping cars. What the sleeping cars lacked was
>> passengers willing to pay the price for a journey which they can now
>> do for a very similar price in just under one tenth of the time.
>
>I thought the only sleeping cars on NZR were the ones they built for the
>Queen in 1953.
No there was a full fleet of them, dismal things with a corridor down
one side and a steward's pantry at one end, and a toilet at the other.
They were discontinued in the early seventies, I think. The Silver
Star train also had sleepers, but they were apparently designed for
Japanese, since it required a contortionist to be able to fit into the
toilet facilities witin the compartment.
>
>But sleeping cars can cater for two distinct markets: up-market
>business/tourist travellers who want the luxury, and can combine the trip
>with the ovbernight accommodation to get perceived good value.
Having used the old ones, I have to say that if you are an upmarket
business traveller, this is not a good option. The jerking, clanging,
banging, stopping, starting, waiting with hissing couplings in the
middle of nowhere, the noise of passing trains, clanging crossing
bells, are not conducive to a good night's rest. The catering was of
moderate to low standard.
>They'll want
>a proper dining car too, an enterprise that can be hugely profitable. On the
>Auckland/Wellington run, it oughtto be possible to offer a late evening
>departure from each city (between 10pm & midnight) and an early morning
>(8 - 8.30 am ) arrival at the other end.
Someone tried to make a private venture out of it ... a sort of
travelling hotel/tour group ... I never did hear why that fizzled out
... I believe the conversion started.
>
>No drive out to the airport, no waiting around for planes, no overbooking -
>just close your eyes & you're there.
So instead you drive to the railway station, wait around for the train
which may or may not arrive or depart on time .... and close your eyes
open your eyes WTF was that?
(snip)
>Mind you, it would want to be a lot better than the miserable 'Southern
>Cross' we rode between Melbourne & Sydney. I am fairly convinced that there
>was an extra set of wheels just beneath our compartment that was at right
>angles to all the others, the train banged and crashed around on the track
>all night, and breakfast was an unpleasantness in a cardboard box. As a
>regular user of German railways InterCity Night service, I was unimpressed.
>Although I do know that Germans these days say the rhythm of the rails as
>the trains go along at 250 km/h is saying 'Eschede, Eschede, Eschede...'
:-)
Jim Purdie
"Daniel Silva" <dan...@NOSPAMsilva.co.nz> wrote in message
news:TYr_6.981$XO3.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
sexual metaphors don't have to be so Freudian. A more likely one is
territory marking, physical in terms of the model layout (what king could be
more powerful within his territory than the owner of a model railway?), and
intellectual in terms of the esoteric knowledge available (how many people
can list the engines in use on the NZR during the nineteenth century? I am
sure there are people who take pride in being able to do just that.).
From an old train lover (unconsummated).
Jim Purdie
David Wardley
> I fear you trivialize the desire of any private operator to
make a profit from
> rail passenger services. They simply cant.. and neither could
the Govt. for most
> of a century.
>
> JC
>
I'm sure you're right. The prime objective in all the
discussions, the only over-riding aim is to make a profit. The
take overs, the wrangling, the legalities, is simply a battle
about who can steal the most of what is there.
If someone did some work towards primarily providing a service,
deciding if it was viable, making it satisfy genuine market needs
in a true competitive fashion then someone, one day, might make
some money - honestly. The technical know how is there, the
resources/labour is there, the people are there, all stymied by
the quest for profit first. Nothing wrong with profit but where's
the SERVICE - first.
DW
David Wardley
"Philip Crookes" <phi...@crookes.org> wrote in message
news:9hg92e$eao08$2...@ID-89693.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Brian Harmer" <brian....@vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
> >
> > Um ... Philip have you examined a railway bed at ground zero?
How you
> > regard the oily brown coating of oil, and brake dust as
being in some
> > way cleaner and greener than the roadway is beyond me.
>
> Deposits from the trains always fall in the same place, and
don't get
> disturbed.
Lol, except where the railway runs right down the main street!
What's the name of the place.......fascinating though?
DW
Brian Harmer
<dwar...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>Lol, except where the railway runs right down the main street!
>What's the name of the place.......fascinating though?
Kawakawa
enkidu
I lived in Weymouth, Dorset in the UK. The train for the
cross-channel ferry also travelled down one of the main
streets.
Cheers,
Cliff
John Cawston
> "John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> snip
> > I fear you trivialize the desire of any private operator to
> make a profit from
> > rail passenger services. They simply cant.. and neither could
> the Govt. for most
> > of a century.
> >
> > JC
> >
>
> I'm sure you're right. The prime objective in all the
> discussions, the only over-riding aim is to make a profit. The
> take overs, the wrangling, the legalities, is simply a battle
> about who can steal the most of what is there.
Err. As the Govt. was the only shareholder in rail for nearly all of
last century, you appear to be offering a damning indictment of State
control, corruption and profit taking?
>
> If someone did some work towards primarily providing a service,
> deciding if it was viable, making it satisfy genuine market needs
> in a true competitive fashion then someone, one day, might make
> some money - honestly. The technical know how is there, the
> resources/labour is there, the people are there, all stymied by
> the quest for profit first. Nothing wrong with profit but where's
> the SERVICE - first.
Ask our Govt. of the past 100 odd years.
JC
Brian Harmer
wrote:
>David Wardley wrote:
>> If someone did some work towards primarily providing a service,
>> deciding if it was viable, making it satisfy genuine market needs
>> in a true competitive fashion then someone, one day, might make
>> some money - honestly. The technical know how is there, the
>> resources/labour is there, the people are there, all stymied by
>> the quest for profit first. Nothing wrong with profit but where's
>> the SERVICE - first.
>Ask our Govt. of the past 100 odd years.
I have to yield my seat to David as the new reigning starry-eyed
romantic.
Surely, David, the service has been there, as John says, for more than
a century. Isn't that sufficient time to discover whether or not it is
viable? Isn't the fact that all but a few are choosing other ways to
travel evidence that there is no significant market today for rail
travel. It is slow and weary stuff unless you have the time and desire
to gaze at backyards and rural landscapes.
And even I know that profit is NOT a dirty word. If you got no
interest would you put your money in a bank? If you made no profit,
why would you work all hours to run a private business? Profit is what
people live off. Why would you invest in any venture that didn't at
least make a profit greater than the other availbale choices in your
chosen risk category?
Whose money should support this magical mystical railway of yours
while we wait for it to become profitable? And if it never becomes
profitable, who will reimburse the investor? Or do they just get to
lose their money in a good cause?
Philip Crookes
"Brian Harmer" <brian....@vuw.ac.nz> wrote
>
> Surely, David, the service has been there, as John says, for more than
> a century. Isn't that sufficient time to discover whether or not it is
> viable? Isn't the fact that all but a few are choosing other ways to
> travel evidence that there is no significant market today for rail
> travel. It is slow and weary stuff unless you have the time and desire
> to gaze at backyards and rural landscapes.
But this is a self-fulfilling argument. So long as the rail offer is 'slow
and weary stuff' of course people will make other choices. But going
anywhere in NZ by car is also slow and weary stuff, limited by traffic,
speed limits and slow roads. Plenty of time to gaze at the truck in front,
the side of the road and, occasionally, rural landscapes. So why do people
persist in doing it? Because it's perceived to be more convenient, more
comfortable (which is open to challenge) and cheaper, because the real cost
of any individual trip isn't apparent at the time of the trip.
Kiwis have by and large lost the urge to use any form of public transport -
mostly because what's on offer is lousy. But there's a lot of experience
elsewhere in the world to suggest that if the quality of what's offered is
improved, people will happily use it - both in town and out of town.
The one thing that is absolutely certain is that assuming everyone has, and
can afford to run, a private car is not the answer. Even the Brits and
Americans have been forced to realise that road-building by itself solves no
problems. And that's before we look at pollution issues...
Philip
Dave Joll
news:3B3C3391...@cliffp.com...
> Brian Harmer wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:57:39 +1200, "David Wardley"
> > >Lol, except where the railway runs right down the main street!
> > >What's the name of the place.......fascinating though?
> > Kawakawa
> I lived in Weymouth, Dorset in the UK. The train for the
> cross-channel ferry also travelled down one of the main
> streets.
The railway runs down the middle of the main street of Ohai.
John Cawston
> "Brian Harmer" <brian....@vuw.ac.nz> wrote
> >
> > Surely, David, the service has been there, as John says, for more than
> > a century. Isn't that sufficient time to discover whether or not it is
> > viable? Isn't the fact that all but a few are choosing other ways to
> > travel evidence that there is no significant market today for rail
> > travel. It is slow and weary stuff unless you have the time and desire
> > to gaze at backyards and rural landscapes.
>
> But this is a self-fulfilling argument. So long as the rail offer is 'slow
> and weary stuff' of course people will make other choices.
You could import a "bullet" and it wouldn't go any faster. The gauge, the
topography, the instability of the country, the bridges all conspire against it.
You are comparing a continental or glaciated landscape with a young and still
upthrusting country in terms of fast rail.
> But going
> anywhere in NZ by car is also slow and weary stuff, limited by traffic,
> speed limits and slow roads.
Again, the country conspires against you.
> Plenty of time to gaze at the truck in front,
> the side of the road and, occasionally, rural landscapes. So why do people
> persist in doing it? Because it's perceived to be more convenient, more
> comfortable (which is open to challenge) and cheaper, because the real cost
> of any individual trip isn't apparent at the time of the trip.
The cost of rail Rotorua to Auckland return is $99 and the trip is 4 hours one
way. By car its less than three hours and cost is about the same. But the
overall saving in convenience, door to door, independence etc. is huge.
These factors killed passenger rail nearly 50 years ago.
>
>
> Kiwis have by and large lost the urge to use any form of public transport -
Busses do pretty well.
>
> mostly because what's on offer is lousy. But there's a lot of experience
> elsewhere in the world to suggest that if the quality of what's offered is
> improved, people will happily use it - both in town and out of town.
I dont think so. As Brian says, we tried that 30 years ago and bombed. The other
factor is the tyranny of a small population in a relatively huge area with many
logistical travel problems, we can only build what we can afford.
JC
Geoff McCaughan
> "Brian Harmer" <brian....@vuw.ac.nz> wrote
>>
>> We did have sleeping cars. What the sleeping cars lacked was
>> passengers willing to pay the price for a journey which they can now
>> do for a very similar price in just under one tenth of the time.
> I thought the only sleeping cars on NZR were the ones they built for the
> Queen in 1953.
I have dim memories of travelling in a sleeper car on the southern line as a
young child.
--
"He will give them death, and they will love him for it"
Geoff McCaughan
>>David Wardley wrote:
>>> If someone did some work towards primarily providing a service,
>>> deciding if it was viable, making it satisfy genuine market needs
>>> in a true competitive fashion then someone, one day, might make
>>> some money - honestly. The technical know how is there, the
>>> resources/labour is there, the people are there, all stymied by
>>> the quest for profit first. Nothing wrong with profit but where's
>>> the SERVICE - first.
> I have to yield my seat to David as the new reigning starry-eyed
> romantic.
> Surely, David, the service has been there, as John says, for more than
> a century. Isn't that sufficient time to discover whether or not it is
> viable?
*A* service has been available, I think David was aiming at providing
'Service' - i.e. what people want, at a reasonable price, convenient times,
good food, promotion to the tourist market etc, rather than a clapped-out,
dreary, railway-pies and weak tea 'service' that may have been acceptable in
the 50's, but doesn't cut it today.
> Isn't the fact that all but a few are choosing other ways to
> travel evidence that there is no significant market today for rail
> travel. It is slow and weary stuff unless you have the time and desire
> to gaze at backyards and rural landscapes.
As Phillip observed, travelling by bus or car can be just as slow and weary.
For myself, I'd like to have the option of seeing the scenery from time to
time instead of wearing myself out driving, and travelling by rail is a lot
less cramped than by bus.
Geoff McCaughan
There's a place near Jack London square in Oakland where the railway travels
down an otherwise ordinary-looking street, as I discovered for a
heart-stopping moment when I innocently turned down it to find a whacking
big train bearing down on me.
Geoff McCaughan
> Data on the trainspotters should be easy to collect - just
> stand on a platform, stare at them and jot down details,
> he way they do with trains.
Dave Frame, the train-spotter-spotter.
Brian Harmer
wrote:
>Dave Frame <da...@met.rdg.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Data on the trainspotters should be easy to collect - just
>> stand on a platform, stare at them and jot down details,
>> he way they do with trains.
>Dave Frame, the train-spotter-spotter.
Geoff McCaughan the train-spotter-spotter-spotter?
Bigfleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em
and little fleas have lesser fleas and so, ad infinitum.
David Wardley
"Geoff McCaughan" <sat...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3b3d...@clear.net.nz...
snip
> As Phillip observed, travelling by bus or car can be just as
slow and weary.
> For myself, I'd like to have the option of seeing the scenery
from time to
> time instead of wearing myself out driving, and travelling by
rail is a lot
> less cramped than by bus.
>
I doubt we have the population to support an 'attractive'
passenger rail system. The Bullet train in Japan averages over
200kph with record speeds of well over 400kph. Others with
similar performance are being built. If NZ had the need for it
and could afford that sort of machinery then rail from Auckland
to Wgtn might compete happily with other transport. Can't see it
happening.
DW
Patrick Ford
There will never be any sort of train that can achieve that sort of speed
from Auckland to Wellytown, except over the few flat bits like the
Waikato swamplands.
--
--
My domain contains .co, not .com as appears in the header.
Patrick Ford Auckland, Aotearoa (New Zealand)
Charles Eggen
I suppose that it was only a question of when - not if - New Zealand
would completely lose its passenger rail service; especially since it
was sold to a U.S. firm - Wisconsin Rail.
The condition of sale should have included a requirement that
passenger service must be maintained to retain the lucrative freight
service. Just as has been done in the U.S., you are going to lose your
passenger service since it does not reap high profits. One way to do
that is to gradually lower the quality of service to where fewer want
to use it, and then eventually they can say that it is no longer
viable.
All transport is subsidised. Vehicle roads are not toll ones, but are
built and maintained by taxes, as are airports and their associated
control services. Most people have no idea how much it really costs to
own and operate a vehicle. In addition to the petrol, there is
maintainance, including tyre replacement, amortisation of original
investment and insurance. It is not cheaper than rail or bus and I
find that travel by rail to be a much more enjoyable experience than
being cooped up on a bus.
There was a time when passenger service almost went to Queenstown
(rail from Invercargill to Kingston and then boat to Queenstown). The
Otago Central passenger service ended in 1976. Dargaville service
stopped in 1974 and the northland service to Okaihau and Opua ceased
in 1976. Service to New Plymouth ended in 1983 and to Gisborne in
1988, to mention a few. In otherwords, passenger service was being
curtailed well before Wisconsin Rail entered the picture. With more
cars and better roads, fewer people were using rail, but I will always
feel that rail is the more relaxing method of travel and I hope that
New Zealand passenger rail service does not become a thing of the
past.
Chuck
David Pears
wrote:
>The condition of sale should have included a requirement that
>passenger service must be maintained to retain the lucrative freight
>service.
Including such a requirement would have reduced the price the
government received when they sold the railways. The government
decided that receiving a big wodge of cash to spend on popular public
services was preferable to maintaining an uneconomical service used by
a tiny minority of travellers.
David
Dave Frame
> Dave Frame <da...@met.rdg.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Data on the trainspotters should be easy to collect - just
> > stand on a platform, stare at them and jot down details,
> > he way they do with trains.
>
> Dave Frame, the train-spotter-spotter.
I quite like the idea of recursive spotting. Trainspotters
are one of the few groups of people - tossers at cafes
are another - who shamelessly stare at people going past.
Trainspotters at least have the excuse of gawking at
engines (in the first instance, though it's still unneving
when you're in a carriage they're looking at).
Side-tracking into the other group cited above - does
anyone else hate "people watchers" in cafes? It was
a particular pet hate of mine in Wellington.
Dave Frame
Brian Harmer
wrote:
>Side-tracking into the other group cited above - does
>anyone else hate "people watchers" in cafes? It was
>a particular pet hate of mine in Wellington.
They weren't watching "people" Dave, it was just you!
:-)
tricia
Good grief Dave. People watching is one of the most interesting and
satisfying occupations that there is. People never cease to amaze, delight
intrigue, puzzle and scare the living shit out of me.
tricia
Dave Frame
Actually that's perhaps a marginally more charitable response
than the one I thought you might give - along the lines of
"was there anything about Wellington that you *didn't* hate?"
Dave
Dave Frame
> Dave Frame wrote:
>
> > Side-tracking into the other group cited above - does
> > anyone else hate "people watchers" in cafes? It was
> > a particular pet hate of mine in Wellington.
>
> Good grief Dave. People watching is one of the most interesting and
> satisfying occupations that there is. People never cease to amaze, delight
> intrigue, puzzle and scare the living shit out of me.
It's the generalisations and stereotyping which accompany people-
watching that I find distasteful - I've heard a lot of cafe-bound
people-watchers play very unpleasant games where they basically
try to guess what people do, or what they're like, from the
snapshot they see as people pass by. It just strikes me as smug
and unnecessarily cruel. The stereotypes people often peddle
when people-watching are normally just facile, stupid and
unimaginative. To people like me, the reason we oppose racism
or sexism is because of the unfairness of expecting individuals
to conform to some ridiculous, ignorant, averaged set of attributes
which have been ascribed to a group purely by virtue of their
membership of that group. People-watching is too often just an
excuse to indulge that same fundamentally cruel streak.
I'll happily admit that many people will think I'm taking it
far too seriously.
Dave Frame
Brian Harmer
wrote:
>Actually that's perhaps a marginally more charitable response
>than the one I thought you might give - along the lines of
>"was there anything about Wellington that you *didn't* hate?"
Dave, your coming to Wellington in the first place was obviously a
huge cultural and emotional sacrifice in the noble cause of career
advancement ... and if everybody liked Wellington, there would be
nobody left in Southland. New Zealand *needs* people like you who hate
Wellington otherwise large tracts of land would revert to wilderness.
And besides, I don't ask questions to which I already know the answer
:-)
tricia
Dave, you have made a set of judgements about cafe-bound people watchers.
Lets see - smug, cruel, facile, stupid and unimaginative. Are you not
indulging in the sort of stereotyping that you accuse them of?
>
> I'll happily admit that many people will think I'm taking it
> far too seriously.
>
I just think you dont like Wellington.
tricia
Brian Harmer
>Dave Frame wrote:
>> tricia wrote:
>>> Dave Frame wrote:
>>> > Side-tracking into the other group cited above - does
>>> > anyone else hate "people watchers" in cafes? It was
>>> > a particular pet hate of mine in Wellington.
(snip)
>I just think you dont like Wellington.
Play nice Tricia .... Dave tried hard, but true to his roots, he
remains a Southland boy at heart, and they just could not transform
him into a shiny-arsed treasury 'droid.
tricia
Well that may be. But he is making sweeping generalisations about all
Wellingtonians based on his prejudices, perhaps you should ask him to play
nice eh? *bptg*
tricia
Dave Frame
Not quite... I was saying that people I have seen and heard in
cafes (note: these are observations, not blind generalisation)
often seemed to peddle some awful stereotypes under the guise
of "people watching" (I explained this in a later post). I didn't
say this was necessarily peculiar to Wellington, or that it was
a general property of Wellingtonians, so it wasn't a "generalisation
about all Wellingtonians based on [my] prejudices." It was a
comment about some people in cafes. Its Wellington-ness
was secondary.
Dave Frame
Dave Frame
Actually there are quite a few things I did like about Wellington.
I liked the waterfront. I liked Oriental Bay - I used to do some
tutoring every week in Oriental Bay (paid in food and beer) and
used to love the walk from work to there. And my cousin used
to live in Island Bay, which I like, too, although I admit
that this may be a function of what you can see from there...
Quite funny though thinking about:
"New Zealand *needs* people like you who hate Wellington
otherwise large tracts of land would revert to wilderness."
in the context of me being sat here at my desk in scenic Reading
on the other side of the world...
Dave Frame
tricia
> Not quite... I was saying that people I have seen and heard in
> cafes (note: these are observations, not blind generalisation)
> often seemed to peddle some awful stereotypes under the guise
> of "people watching" (I explained this in a later post). I didn't
> say this was necessarily peculiar to Wellington, or that it was
> a general property of Wellingtonians, so it wasn't a "generalisation
> about all Wellingtonians based on [my] prejudices." It was a
> comment about some people in cafes. Its Wellington-ness
> was secondary.
>
> Dave Frame
>
>
Well gee maybe it is the fact that you said that people watchers in cafes
were a particular pet hate of yours in Wellington that I got the funny idea
that we were talking about Wellingtonians in particular. But obviously I
was misguided. I think that people who describe people-watchers as smug,
cruel, facile etc may infact be indulging in a bit of stereotyping
themselves, or maybe I am just misguided again *bptg*
tricia
--
"I don't know how man will fight World War III, but I do know how they will
fight World War IV; with sticks and stones."
- Albert Einstein
George/Gosnell
I once worked for NZ Railways so have some insight.
(I could tell you some horror stories about that.)
I once travelled often from Dunedin to Alexandra on the railcar, then
by NZR bus to Cromwell.
It was said that if the South island lines had been pushed through to the
West Coast
as planned and then joined the Coast line it would have paid. The trouble
with
branch lines, and Invercargill is now a 'branch line' there is too much
empty stock
rattling around.
I think there would be a case for rail if it was part of the tourist trail
e.g. the Taeri Gorge
Railway.
Cheers,
David.
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3B39E001...@ihug.co.nz...
> It seems we are to lose some passenger services on trains as
> a result of the breakup of Transrail; specifically the
> southern link to Invercargill, ..snipped