NZ Ends Electric Freight

[LNW-GW Joint]

In another sign of the times, KiwiRail has decided to stop using the catenary on the North Island Grand Trunk line in New Zealand, after 30 years of electric operation between Hamilton and Palmerston North.
The wires covered 60% of the hilly Wellington-Auckland main line, but the need for diesels on the rest of the line has made electric operation uneconomic.
The Brush EF electric locos used are related to the Eurotunnel shuttle locos.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...kiwirail-to-end-electric-freight-haulage.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Island_Main_Trunk

There is currently an 87km gap between the recently-electrified Auckland suburban network (using the same 25kV AC system) and the NIMT wires at Hamilton.
The gap to the south from Palmerston North to the Wellington suburban system is 80km, but the Wellington system is wired at 1.5kV DC.
It all has the feel of a ha'porth of tar situation, with the incomplete electric system unable to deliver its full benefits.

My first visit to NZ was during the construction phase in 1985, and I travelled over the spectacular route on the Silver Fern DEMU.
The Auckland-Wellington passenger service was electrically operated for a time but is now back in the hands of diesel locos.

The OHLE is to remain in place.

 

[ac6000cw]

It sounds rather unfortunate, but it's the classic problem of discontinuous electrification - the cost of the loco changes en-route (which also tends to result in lower fleet utilisation) plus the added costs of maintaining the OHLE become a 'problem' when you get to the point that serious money needs to be spent on motive power or infrastructure. The electric locos are 30 years old, so it's time for a serious rebuild/refurbishment or replacement - expensive, when they could probably expand their (fairly modern) diesel fleet at rather lower cost to cover the workings.

This is one of the major reasons why the UK Woodhead line closed - equipment was life-expired and it wasn't worth replacing when there were lower-cost alternatives for the traffic.

 

[edwin_m]

It puzzles me why anyone could think this was a sensible scheme in the 1980s. I would have thought the disadvantages of partial electrication would be obvious to anyone who had studied the US examples, all of which had gone by then I think. The disadvantages of stopping electrification 90km short of the main traffic objective would surely have been obvious.

 

[furnessvale]

This is one of the major reasons why the UK Woodhead line closed - equipment was life-expired and it wasn't worth replacing when there were lower-cost alternatives for the traffic.

I seem to recall that the cost of conversion to 25kv was put at around £30m. After closing 2/3rds of the route they managed to convert the approx 1/3rd remaining open for around £1m.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It puzzles me why anyone could think this was a sensible scheme in the 1980s. I would have thought the disadvantages of partial electrication would be obvious to anyone who had studied the US examples, all of which had gone by then I think. The disadvantages of stopping electrification 90km short of the main traffic objective would surely have been obvious.

The Milwaukee Road was the classic case of discontinuous electrification - 2 mountain sections of 438 and 207 miles over the Rockies/Cascades, with a 217 mile gap in between and of course at both ends.
The 3kV DC system lasted from 1916 till 1974, with the whole Pacific Extension being closed in 1980.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago,_Milwaukee,_St._Paul_and_Pacific_Railroad

The Great Northern used a 6.6kV AC electric system through Cascade Tunnel in Washington over the period 1909-1956, but it was a localised system installed because of fumes in the tunnel.
They reverted to diesel after re-ventilating the tunnel (now BNSF).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Tunnel

 

[MarcVD]

Same history for Hoosac tunnel on the Boston & Maine...

Envoyé de mon GT-I9505 en utilisant Tapatalk

 

[ac6000cw]

...and the Norfolk & Western - after 35 years of hauling coal trains electrically over Elkhorn summit, in 1950 they opened a new much larger tunnel with forced ventilation at a lower elevation and went back to steam haulage, abandoning 50 miles of electrification.

The problem with Woodhead was that (for freight) it was a yard-to-yard electrification system i.e. designed for a steam-age operational model. This meant that when its latter-day primary traffic (power station coal) went over to MGR operation the trains had to change locos twice on the way from colliery to power station (usually Fiddlers Ferry). Liveable with when you've already spent the money (you may as well get a return on the investment), but not something you would want to perpetuate when the time came to renew the system.

 

[HSTEd]

Supposedly the 25kV electrification will be maintained in usable condition.

So I suppose bi-modes might be an option in the future.
It's a pity they can't really afford the NZ$1bn for total electrification of the remaining parts of the NIMT.

 

[furnessvale]

...and the Norfolk & Western - after 35 years of hauling coal trains electrically over Elkhorn summit, in 1950 they opened a new much larger tunnel with forced ventilation at a lower elevation and went back to steam haulage, abandoning 50 miles of electrification.

The problem with Woodhead was that (for freight) it was a yard-to-yard electrification system i.e. designed for a steam-age operational model. This meant that when its latter-day primary traffic (power station coal) went over to MGR operation the trains had to change locos twice on the way from colliery to power station (usually Fiddlers Ferry). Liveable with when you've already spent the money (you may as well get a return on the investment), but not something you would want to perpetuate when the time came to renew the system.

Agreed, but why did they feel the need to cook the books so much when it came to costing the update?

Of course the real reason was the need to close the Woodhead so they could use the tunnel for a road. Only after they had closed the route and looked at it properly did they realise it wasn't suitable for a road in any case. Now they are looking at building a new £6bn (and rising) road tunnel under Woodhead.

 

[Phil.]

It puzzles me why anyone could think this was a sensible scheme in the 1980s. I would have thought the disadvantages of partial electrication would be obvious to anyone who had studied the US examples, all of which had gone by then I think. The disadvantages of stopping electrification 90km short of the main traffic objective would surely have been obvious.

GWR main line refers.