Click here for MUCH GOOD New Zealand RAIL info.

The Northerner, the all night train Auckland-Wellington, New Zealand. A non-smoking train. That means the passengers are not allowed to smoke. But because the company is run by greedy men, the old diesel-electric is allowed to burn 2000 litres of diesel per trip although the line is 3/4 electrified. New Zealand's national train-service (i.e. the passenger) is basically being milked.for what they are worth. The night train has uncomfortable (sat-through) seats, if you want to sleep, bring a lot of pillows. There are no beds, just old seats. If they only had couchettes, however primitive ... bring your own sleeping bag and pillow.

But, it still runs. And the staff working on the trains is simply wonderful.

The trip costs 109$ (Feb97), sometimes there are stand-by flights which are cheaper. There are also reduced fares available:103, 90 or 65$ for the day-train. 87, 76 or 55 $ for the night train. Very limited seats, you have to book in advance, booking up to 200 days in advance is possible, phone 0800-802802

Here is the schedule of the night-train:

Auckland Wellington Sunday to Friday

Auckland depart 20:40
Middlemore      20:57
Papakura        21:09
Pukekohe        21:25
Huntly          22:10
Hamilton        22:43
Te Awamutu      23:02
Otorohanga      23:21
Te Kuiti        23:37
Taumaruninui     0:53
National Park    1:57
Ohakune          2:25
Waiouru          2:50
Taihape          3:37
Marton           4:33
Feilding         4:55
Palmerston Nth   5:18
Levin            5:56
Otaki            6:17
Paraparaumu      6:38
Porirua          7:15
Wellington       7:35

Wellington - Auckland  Sunday to Friday

Wellington      19:45
Porirua         20:02
Paraparaumu     20:36
Otaki           20:57
Levin           21:17
Palmerston Nth  22:00
Feilding        22:15
Marton          22:40
Taihape         23:38
Waiouru          0:23
Ohakune          0:47
National Park    1:17
Taumaruninui     2:19
Te Kuiti         3:35
Otorohanga       3:52
Te Awamutu       4:11
Hamilton         4:40
Huntly           5:05
Pukekohe         5:50
Papakura         6:05
Middlemore       6:20
Auckland arrive  6:45

Here some messages, from a local message group, shedding light on the NZ train-issues:

Herald 29Jan business section: (here the full article)
Tranz Rail posted 24 mio after tax profit for the december half year., 
5 mio more than the year b4
revenue up 1.5 %
operating costs up 2%
moved 5.6 mio tons  up 12 %
cook st ferry  up 7%
rail passengers up 4%
labour costs up 2%
material costs  down 27 %

And the friggin train Akl-Wgtn still runs on diesel, although
Hamilton to Plamerston is electrified..  The air in the 
carriages is unbearable.. have to close the windows.. and sweat.

urgh  the whole thing is a disgrace..  If one wants to travel to
Wellington environmentally .. this is what you get. And Tranz Rail
makes a nice profit.  Who owns it these days?






> urgh  the whole thing is a disgrace..  If one wants to travel to
> Wellington environmentally .. this is what you get. And Tranz Rail
> makes a nice profit.  Who owns it these days?

It could be *YOU* - or a decent sized chunk of it could be yours -
for a few mil the AK central station is up for grabs - was even a
piccy in the paper (real estate) a few days ago.

Did you know that the cost of electrification of the main trunk line
was so high that even if ECNZ gave Tranz Rail *free* electricity, it
still would not pay for itself?






> Did you know that the cost of electrification of the main trunk line
> was so high that even if ECNZ gave Tranz Rail *free* electricity, it
> still would not pay for itself?

What is this then: material costs  down 27 %

and 100 mio   after tax profit   in just ONE YEAR !!!

and even if the costs are high.. nightmare.. the company can't
run away with loads of cash, they have to play long-term...

and most is already finished !!!  they did most of it already!
and the diesel stinks... its really third-world country - like...

My point is that Tranz Rail would not get a positive return on putting
the money into electrifying the MTR (or that bit that's left).

The company is controlled by an american rail company and thay are under
no regulatory control to run it in any particular fashion. Presumably
they will only seek to wring the maximum money out of it, whether that's
a long or short term outcome. It appears that given that objective
function, the optimal solution is to just run the company into the
ground. :(

BTW, it's a long time since I did the AKL-WLG train trip, but I never
noticed any diesel fumes. 





> they will only seek to wring the maximum money out of it, whether that's
> a long or short term outcome. It appears that given that objective
> function, the optimal solution is to just run the company into the
> ground. :(
> 
sure enough... thats indeed what is sooo obvious.

> BTW, it's a long time since I did the AKL-WLG train trip, but I never
> noticed any diesel fumes. 

Since they haven't bought new loco's  the diesel fumes could only have
gotten worse...  i.e. older engines stink more.

The question remains... can't we make a quick law to force them 
thinking long-term?  Where does the money go?






> The question remains... can't we make a quick law to force them 
> thinking long-term?  Where does the money go?

The money goes to the shareholders, i.e. Some US corporate.
I believe that when the government sold NZ Rail it lost the right to
subsequently stipulate how it is to be run. Retrspective legislation,
nationalisation etc is banana-republic stuff that Winston would
advocate, but only when he was in opposition. 

I'm afraid that if rail is not cost competitive against other forms of
travel, then it will die out. There's no mandate for taxpayers to
subsidise rail afficionados' preferences. On the other hand, rail is at an
 unfair disadvantage against road freight and transport operators, who
do not cover the cost of maintaining the roads: that's subsidised by
private traffic.





> The money goes to the shareholders, i.e. Some US corporate.

And Fay Richwhite, who I believe have a bigger shareholding than Wisconsin
Central

WIsconsin Central is considered to be a very progressive, pro-rail
organisation. They have also bought all of the privatised British Railways
freight companies, again in association with Fay Richwhite (And they only
own the operating rights, not the track or structures in UK so there
aren;'t any assets to strip.). They've only owned it a year or so, and in
that time have ordered nearly 300 locomotives and reversed the decline of
railfreight in the UK.

In NZ they have bought railcars for Auckland which now has a basic, but
useable local rail service, reintroduced pasenger services to Rotorua and
Tauranga, bought quite a number of locomotives from Queensland which have
been completely rebuilt and are now coming into service, and are
negotiating to replace all their carriages with British Rail coaches which
are vastly superior, two are already here.

In the US they started out as a very small freight railroad and by a
process of expansion have moved into one of the largest freight movers in
the country after the big four, most reclaimed from road. 

The President, Ed Burkhart, is a hard nosed businessman  who seems to be
determined to revitalise rail as a transport mode.Whatever diesel
pollution you might think you experience as a passenger is nothing to what
you would be seeing if the same volumes of freight was hauled by diesel
trucks on the road.

good to hear this stuff.. well informed man! thanks for telling us.
do you mind if I put these comments on a TRANZ-rail web-page?

Yet its a long way until we get a bullet train Akl-Windington...

apparently the current is differnt sort in Wellington, too.
DC? however modern locos can handle any power... and even use
regenerative braking... i.e. when a train goes down the raurimu spiral,
some other train goes faster somewhere else ;-)

So, if they introduce more modern rolling stopck.. what does it mean
then when I read in the Herald that "Materials costs fell 27 percent"?
What do yous think?

> good to hear this stuff.. well informed man! thanks for telling us.
> do you mind if I put these comments on a TRANZ-rail web-page?

Feel free...
> 
> Yet its a long way until we get a bullet train Akl-Windington...

I'd say never.... Even in the steam train days there were only two
passenger trains per day AKL-WLG, which is pretty small if you consider
Birmingham - Manchester or London - Glasgow which have trains more than
hourly.

The main trunk, like most of the rest of the rail system here, wasn't
built as a high speed passenger route. Its prime purpose was to move
freight, and speed isn't so importent for this; In the UK passengers came
first on the trunk lines and freight came later.
AKL-WLG is considered to be outside the effective distance/travelling time
for substantial passenger flows, I forget the exact distance, but there is
a point where the time/cost equation switches to favour air as the
passenger transpoort mode. SInce the main trunk isn't high-speed, nothing
can be done to reduce the travelling time. The main trunk wasn't
electrified for performance reasons, it was done to reduce dependence on
imported oil vis a vis locally  produced hydro electricity.

Wellington is 1500v DC, which was the 'world standard' when it was
electrified. The middle bit is 25000v AC which is the current standard.
As you say, locomotives canbe designed for multiple voltages, in Eurpoe
they have them running on 4 voltages, AC and DC, but what's the point of
doing it here?

> regenerative braking... i.e. when a train goes down the raurimu spiral,
> some other train goes faster somewhere else ;-)

This only works if the power supply has been designed to accept power as
well as delivering it. I've never heard of it being done on AC
electrification and I'm not sure that it could be done as the AC is
converted in the locomotive to DC to drive the motors and if regeneration
was used the DC produced would have to be converted back to AC before it
was sent back to the line. I think the main trunk uses rheostatic braking,
where the motors do produce power, but it is diverted to resistances on
the locomotive, not sent back to the line.
 >  >
So, if they introduce more modern rolling stopck.. what does it mean

Not all that modern - the carriages were built in the late 1970s, but
theya re a very successful all-welded integrally constructed design and
have been extensively refurbished since. On the other hand, I think the
last time new coaches were built for NZR was 1956 or so.

> then when I read in the Herald that "Materials costs fell 27 percent"?
> What do yous think?

If you rationalise your network, remove old sidings etc and reuse the
equipment, and bring in advanced programmed maintenance practices your
materials costs will inevitably drop.

Next best thing to a bullet train would be the
"over-night-in-comfy-bed" with small breakfast (good coffee!)
and bring your own sleeping bag ... if need be.

But the diesel has to go... too loud, too stinky...

* a real bonus is the staff on the train.. they are classic! lovem!
which probably says something about the effect of travelling by train
on the mind... its good for you.

Hmm. I notice that Dutch Railways are trialing a new
"light rail" (looks bigger than some suburban trains
here) train to replace the diesels on the very minor
routes which are too uneconomic to be electrified.
Guess what? The new vehicles are also diesel.

So instead of doing away with diesel all together,
why not replace them with something a bit more modern?

...

You answered your own question. Electrification requires a big investment
in fixed plant, particularly in countries like the Netherlands where they
have DC systems. They have to have substations every few miles to change
the AC to DC, and the overhead structures have to be pretty substantial
because at 1500 DC a 5000kw locomotive draws quite a lot of amps resulting
in pretty severe voltage drop (Particulary bearing in mind that 5000kw is
the *continuous rating* and the instantaneous vale at starting could be 5
to 10 times that - a DC motor is almost a dead short when starting).
That's one of the reasons why modern main line electrification is at 25kv
as the overhead structures can be much lighter and therefore less
expensive. (Copper or phosphor bronze is still used as Aluminium as used
in power lines doesn't resist wear enough).

I would guess that in the NEtherlands they are replacing old
(=inefficient) diesel units with new , more efficient ones. Diesel engine
technology has advanced rapidly in the last 10 years, with stepless
electronic control of 3 phase motors meaning that the transmission
efficiency (and hence fuel consumption) is much improved.No matter how you
look at it, it isn't economic to electrify a railway that carries 3 or 4
two-coach trains per day.

From an earlier page about the subject:

What's wrong with New Zealand trains?

Its a narrow gauge - its not a smooth ride, yet bearable. But the real disaster is the environmental record. For the trip from Wellington to Auckland the engine used more than 2000 litres of diesel. (can someone please confirm this?)

This wouldn't be quite so bad if the tracks weren't electrified from Palmerston North until Hamilton, which is most of the way!. Yet no electric locomotive is used. I was told they change locos sometimes, but I have travelled quite a few times and I never stopped smelling diesel, never mind the roar. Actually the diesel stench is so bad, one can't open a windows without letting it in. The driver told me that in his cabin it is unbearable, and he has already written a letters to the company, to safeguard his later claim for compensation, should he get a lung disease.

The engines are at least 25 years old usA-made diesel-electrics. Would it be possible to convert them to electric-only drive?

The Wellington area has a 1600 (?) Volts DC and the rest of the country (?) has 25000 (?) Volts AC (16 2/3 Hz?).

The staff on the train, however, is an utter delight. Apart from the matter-of-fact Maori-lady the whole crew is super-friendly and gives you a warm human feeling... nobody is perfect!