This is actually very reasonable, rail enabled, bigger than what we currently have, but not the absolute monsters that were planned.
I wonder if the ability to operate fully under electrical power for part of the crossing has been retained?
Really need more details to understand or make the comparison between the two plans.
Upgrading port side infrastructure in line with earthquake and environmental regulations still needs to occur - this was a major reason for the cost blow-out, and aside from shifting this burden to the port side councils (not a solution imo), what is the revised costing for this?
Iirc a reporter asked Winston this question but the stupid old fart can’t/doesnt want to answer questioning along these lines - what is the additional maintenance costs we have to fund to keep the current aging fleet going to the absolute end of their tether - this is millions of dollars in funding that’s going to maintain old ships that are going to be scrap.
A question I haven’t seen answered too is the whole - we’ll build different ships with different shipyards. Are we going with one rail enabled ship, one just cars and trucks? Again - I’d love further information here.
Re- the slight bump in capacity freight and people wise - I’m all for the efficiency gains by having rail enabled ferries - but it’s a bit of a shame they will only carry 40 rail carts per trip. I’d prefer a bigger shift towards moving goods by rail and reducing trucks on the road - this is the only way to do it given its such a vital choke point.
Bit of a novel apologies - a guy who takes the ferries mostly as passenger walk on ~10 times a year.
I think the major cost saving is having smaller ships means less port side infrastructure, so even if we do upgrade the port to modern standards, it will still be cheaper.
My understanding is we’re buying two ships, which will be identical.
Also, forty rail cars is a lot, each one is equivalent to a fully loaded truck at least.
The smaller ships are only a little bit smaller and they have no bids on the ships so they have no idea how much they are going to cost. They are going to skimp on the port upgrades which will probably end up not working at all.
So far they have no idea how much any of this is going to cost and you can be sure there will be overruns.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I’m a project analyst working for government and hate relying on vague articles and cryptic press conferences.
Might chuck through a cheeky IOA and dig around for an updated Business case!
40 train carts is a good start, but my personal preference is for the ratio of trucks to train to tip over more to the train side, and with forty carts per ferry, I don’t see how it’s going to help given that according to gemini a train can carry 90-120 carts in one go.
I think the major cost saving is having smaller ships means less port side infrastructure, so even if we do upgrade the port to modern standards, it will still be cheaper.
Does that include $1B in cancellation costs? (number from near end of article)
It will be interesting to see when they announce the cost. I’m not sure they even know, it doesn’t seem like they have asked for quotes yet. Just browsed for ferries on trade me.
Also, forty rail cars is a lot, each one is equivalent to a fully loaded truck at least.
We currently have one ferry that can take 27 rail cars. Are the new ones intended to replace the old ones or work alongside them? I’m assuming replace them. So I hope both of the new ferries can take rail, as every time someone drives Aratere into something the rail capacity vanishes:
As of 2024, Aratere is New Zealand’s only rail ferry. When the vessel is not available, rail freight between the North and South Islands must be transferred to trucks, driven onto other Cook Strait ferries, and then transferred back to rail after the crossing, with associated additional time and cost.
It’s not explicitly said in the article, but the ships will be sister ships, from my understanding, and will be replacing the entire fleet.
Also, the original vessels were $550 mil for the pair, no way is the cancellation cost more than that.
Hmm the $1B number came from Labour. They are probably referring to a total cost of the project, which would not all be wasted as that investigative work would form the basis of the new plan.
Interesting how the project was ballooning to possibly $4B. That’s some massive cost to build new terminals. I’d support spending it if they build the southern one near Blenheim instead of Picton, for cutting the journey time.
Yeah, it had ballooned to more than double their initial estimate, quite frankly, I don’t trust Labour’s numbers on any of this.
No apology needed. Only ever taken the thing 4 times in my life so some user perspective appreciated.
This is a concept of a plan.
I say let’s invite the Chinese. They could build a tunnel or a bridge I bet.
I can’t find the post/blog, but someone a while back looked at a floating bridge…long story short, it is extremely unlikely to be viable due to inclement weather.
That floating tunnel would be cool. Wouldn’t be affected by earthquakes either.
