Tuesday, 30 April 2024

Listening To The Traffic.

It Takes A Train To Cry: Surely, there is nothing lonelier in all this world than the long wail of a distant steam locomotive on a cold Winter’s night.

AS A CHILD, I would lie awake in my grandfather’s house and listen to the traffic. The big wooden house was only a few metres from State Highway One, but, sixty years ago, the traffic, especially after dark, was pretty sparse.

In the silence of the North Otago countryside an approaching automobile announced its presence from a great distance. Nearer and nearer it came, tyres hissing on the tar-seal. Then, as it passed the house, the Doppler Effect dropped the note of its engine until, fading slowly, the darkness swallowed it up.

Rarer even that the cars down Highway One, were the passing trains chuffing up and down the Main Trunk Line. Surely, there is nothing lonelier in all this world than the long wail of a distant steam locomotive on a cold Winter’s night.

The long ribbon of State Highway One was in considerably better nick then than it is now. Not only were there fewer cars, but about the only sizeable vehicles on the roads in those days were the “sheep trucks” transporting lambs, quite literally, to the slaughter.

It was the absence of heavy trucks that kept New Zealand’s highways in such good condition. Potholes were not a “thing” – not in 1962.

That there were so few heavy trucks on the roads was not accidental. The transport regulations of the time were framed to advantage long-distance transportation by rail. In 1961 road haulage was limited to 67 kilometres, increased to 150 kilometres in 1977.

Madness? New Zealand’s big capitalists certainly thought so. They knew that by eliminating the double-handling of goods the nation’s transportation system could be made much more efficient – for them. Canned goods could be loaded onto a heavy truck at a Watties factory in Hawkes Bay and driven straight to the waiting Auckland supermarkets overnight. NZ Railways couldn’t compete.

A great many New Zealanders, caught up in the de-regulatory mania of the 1980s and 90s, were disposed to agree with the road transport lobbyists. It was only as the years passed, and the highways became white-knuckle contests between frail family sedans and multi-wheeled behemoths travelling at terrifying speed, that travellers began to understand what had been hidden in the fine-print of the Neoliberals’ deregulatory gospel.

Not only were the roads becoming increasingly difficult to drive on in safety, but the road surface itself was being chewed up an spat out in chunks. State Highway One was fast becoming an impossible obstacle course of potholes and plastic cones.

To make matters worse, New Zealand’s two main parties could not be persuaded to agree on the optimum mode of transportation. This disagreement was a simple matter of ideology. Capitalists believed in cars. Socialists (and Greens) believed in trains. Cars fit perfectly into the individualistic lifestyle encouraged by capitalism. Trains (and trams) embody the collectivist instincts of socialism. Transportation by rail may be socially rational and economically efficient, but nothing signals “fun” like a fast car.

That’s why, in this battle of the transportation modes, trains were always on a hiding to nothing. And, it certainly didn’t hurt the roads-before-railways lobbyists’ case that the car’s big brother, the heavy-motor-vehicle, had become critical to the top-tier capitalists’ profitability.

Railways are expensive to build and maintain, making them excellent reasons for raising the capitalists’ taxes. They also contribute, in a host of other ways, to the cost of doing big business. Just as well, then, that New Zealand capitalism has the National Party, which has never seen a “highway of national significance” that it didn’t like, or a railway recovery plan that it didn’t loathe. “Tina”, of TV commercial fame, may be sold on “Cars! Cars! Cars!”, but for National it has always been “Roads! Roads! Roads!”

In a world struggling to mitigate the effects of climate change that might appear insane. It has not, however, dissuaded National’s Nicola Willis from compromising the “floating bridge” of railway ferries that binds the North and South Islands – up to and including forcing businesses to unload their containers from railway wagons and load them onto trucks. I’d like to see the Neoliberals explain the improved efficiency of that!

I’d also like to see Labour and the Greens sharpen and amplify their own policies in relation to rebuilding New Zealand’s railways.

Because, the only sound sadder than a locomotive’s wail is … silence.


This essay was originally published in The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 26 April 2024.

10 comments:

  1. The primary aim of this government is regressive monetary intake. Privatization, public - private partnership, shift of cost to local government and user-pays will see a massive shift from any remaining progressive tax take, to the poor subsidy of the wealthy.

    Transport is just one example. An integrated transport system has always been required for a nation of two main islands. In order for economic growth, infrastructure is required. This means a combination and coordination of rail, road and sea services with emission factored into how these modes are developed and used. The British Labour government-in-waiting has committed to the re-nationalization of passenger rail (while sadly not roll stock) after a disastrous right wing experiment failed spectacularly. Government cannot opt out of leading economic development with transport.

    For all of Shane Jones' regional development slush fund, all he can provide is isolated cherries om the top unless the Government leads in overall economic and transport infrastructure. Yet, the economic development minister is ... Melissa Lee, outside of cabinet and possibly reality. The Transport Minister, Simeon Brown, is already talking of tolling existing roads. The infrastructure that our taxes and those of our forebears built as a generational investment in the future, is now likely to be denied to those disadvantaged and others forced to pay twice for the roading. While the Minister of Finance withdraws from investment in ferry terminals without any plan as to how to deal with aging stock.

    Each generation should leave the nation better for the next generation. Does anyone possibly think that transport and infrastructure will have support and coordination for the future under this government?

    ReplyDelete
  2. While road transport is probably more in tune with individualistic capitalism, in many countries quite conservative parties have seen that railways and public transport can contribute significantly to the competitive advantage of a place. Unless they are petrol heads or convinced by social contagion that cars bring freedom, most people actually enjoy the comfort and flexibility of travelling by train. When they are frequent, they also give a lot more freedom than cars can ever give.

    In New Zealand, however, the National Party and one of its predecessors, the United Party, have long rejected rail, possibly since they were in tune with some commercial interests. The first Labour Government was good for rail, probably one of the best governments in New Zealand. Coincidentally, I just made a video about that in my little series on the history of passenger trains in New Zealand. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwns-9h64JA

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perhaps the most damaging fact to the rail enforced monopoly of transport was the efficiency of the way it was run. Or the lack thereof. In my very early 20's ,market gardening on the Hauraki Plains , I made a huge investement of $1300 in a brand new Howard rotary hoe from Howe and Western in Pukekohe. It was in Wellington and had to come up by rail to Pukekohe. # months later after the first season of planting had well passed it arrived.. This was by no means an aberation from what could be expected.
    If State run monopolies could be run efficiently then they would work well for the community and for the economy but how do you get the to do that when no one's job or economic survival is on the line.
    D J S

    ReplyDelete
  4. I suggest you all read the following two in-depth analysis of rail in NZ, including it's history, by someone who loves riding on trains, Inter-regional passenger rail - a dearth of serious analysis"

    However. the "decades of underinvestment" claim is quite something. For a start, there was underinvestment from the 1920s onwards, NZ Railways didn't bother reintroducing dining cars after World War 1, and the last remaining one operating in 1930. There was no on-board catering (beyond tea and coffee) until 1970, so the "underinvestment" was par for the course by the Railways, as it treated its peak passenger demand like many monopolies do, it took them for granted.

    To claim there was underinvestment as demand tailed off implies there should have been more "investment" poured into passenger rail, in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, but why, and for what ends? In reality the major problem was that the NZ Railways Department operated as a heavily-unionised government department with monopolies on much of the market to move people and goods. It was simply a lazy, non-customer focused organisation, it was focused on political and industrial relations imperatives. Business travellers moved to airlines and leisure travellers to cars,


    His piece on how Free public transport is not an environmentally friendly policy is also worth reading

    ReplyDelete
  5. BlisteringAttack2 May 2024 at 19:22

    There was a running joke in Invercargill, at least up to the 1970's, that the youngest NZ Railways employee was tasked to cross the road from the shunting yard to the Clyde Tavern.

    And have filled a number of flagons in readiness for smoko in the shunting yard break hut.

    Such was the seriousness of the work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A few peters from the Clyde, smoko in paradise

      Delete
    2. Anyway, a few beers in the break never effected health and safety. Ask those working there - Stumpy, Hop-a-long, No-Nuts and Wheels.

      Delete
  6. Tom Hunter. That piece you are referring to is full of errors. Just because he loves riding trains does not mean he knows a lot about transport.

    He calls several things utter nonsense, which in international transport comparison are very clear. For example, he rubbishes the idea that good rail services reduce the wear and tear on roads. That clearly is the case. It is no wonder that countries with the best railway infrastructure have also some of the best quality roads, because not as much maintenance is required. A transport system based mainly on private motor vehicles and trucks is very expensive to maintain.

    One thing I find strange is that the author's attachment to capitalist theory is more important than his love of riding trains. Many people like to go by train and prefer to live in a place that is connected by rail. In German that is called Standortfaktor - location factor. Many regions support rail-based transport because it gives them the competitive advantage for attracting residents and business. Today, having good passenger rail is more important in the knowledge economy than having good rail freight connection as it was until the middle of the last century. The Swiss and Dutch, for example, see their good train systems as a Standortfaktor. I have also experienced with several US organisations, which relocated their head offices to locations easily reached by rail.

    To me the author drags out all sorts of falsehoods to justify to himself why railways cannot be a success in New Zealand. That is not a serious argument, but self-delusion of a frustrated railfan.

    Similarly, his criticism of incorrect railway history itself has many faults. You would think that he at least would have read the book he's referring to. For example, services to Rotorua and Tauranga (or rather Te Puke) were not so much stopped because of low patronage, but because of the poor condition of the Fiat / Drewry / articulated (whatever you want to call them) railcars.

    ReplyDelete


  7. "Tina... the "Cars Cars Cars" one ... is of course, the 4 letter acronym for ... TINA ... "There Is No Alternative".

    Too true ... given the broken moribund antidiluvian current state of 1500 kms - North to South ... of our National road/ rail / air / "sea/ (other) logistics- network.

    THERE IS! ... no alternative to resolve our disgraceful highway potholes problem.

    Admission of the challenge of our difficult topography, coupled with a relatively tiny population, it is only fair to observe though that we are pushing it uphill ... both figuratively and actually... to expect a land such as ours to be criss-crossed with expansive ... & expensive ... multi laned M 1 lookalikes.

    RUC's for all traffic are now imminent ... and Hooray! for that!
    At least better fairness will be assured and better user's data is assured.

    And if ...as could be expected ... "The Behemoth Pandectnican" .. "lorries/ trucks" show up in the road user stats as HEAVY road users ... then CHARGE THE BASTARDS.

    Charge em ...to equate RUC's with the costly destructive expensive damage they inflict on our roads***.

    Allowing, that increases in commercial RUC's will be passed on to us Plebs then just TUFF!

    We either want good... not perfect roads, or we don't.

    The trick is correctly assessing our preferences, setting correct road quality standards, determining user imposed costs *** and via RUC's to then ... appropriately bill to road users.

    *** Farm and other off road users are a special case for rebates under a universal RUC regime ...

    *** AND ... FACT!: A Southland Council sponsored roading engineering study, circa 2010 ... or earler? ... found that the average sized citizens saloon inflicted one 30th of the damage ... than "a bloody truck does".

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ Anonymous Tim Frank

    I suggest you go to those links to argue with him since the response time will be much faster than here.

    ReplyDelete