|
|
Post by fish on Dec 13, 2023 16:13:13 GMT 12
Tell 'em their Dreaming.
Kiwirail get shareholder (govt) approval for $775mil to replace the Cook Straight Ferries. (2018)
Cost now at $3billion (2023), tried asking shareholder (govt) for ANOTHER $1.5billlion.
Got told to fuck off.
Noting that the ferries themselves are only 21% of that $3billion. - $630mil for the ferries, if I have my maths right. Noting these are super gold plated hybrid electric ferries -for fucks sake.
How can Kiwirail (or anyone) scope a project so badly?
Heads will be rolling.
Many, many heads.
And every other fucker that tries low-balling an infrastructure project, then sneaking in all the cost blowouts will be shitting their pants.
Boards of Directors are paid to provide governance and oversight for all of these organisations. About time they started doing that.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim on Dec 13, 2023 18:11:09 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Dec 13, 2023 19:06:04 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 13, 2023 20:22:42 GMT 12
I see a slew of unions are lining up to call for Nicola's resignation, saying the sky is going to fall on their head now this project is cancelled.
What I really don't understand, is why Kiwirail needs so much state money, but Straight Shipping are running a long term (20 plus years now) successful, private ferry service.
Everyone I know likes to book Straitsman cause they have cabins so you can have a snooze on the way over, and tend to be more reliable than KiwiRail. Yet Straitsman aren't asking for $3billion.
Go figure.
|
|
dp
Full Member
Posts: 135
|
Post by dp on Dec 13, 2023 22:23:28 GMT 12
I was told the ships are so big that the can't turn around in Picton harbour and will have to be turned around and reversed in from out in the sound.
It seems crazy to make them so big. The trips i did around labour weekend were half empty. It would be better to have more smaller ships doing mote runs. Then less disruption in the case of breakdowns or weather.
But mostly i'm over public bodies underpricing infrastructure to get it started then expecting bailouts to complete it.
|
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Dec 14, 2023 6:35:37 GMT 12
Seeing AT in the CV should have been a red flag.
|
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Dec 14, 2023 6:40:51 GMT 12
I was told the ships are so big that the can't turn around in Picton harbour and will have to be turned around and reversed in from out in the sound. It seems crazy to make them so big. The trips i did around labour weekend were half empty. It would be better to have more smaller ships doing mote runs. Then less disruption in the case of breakdowns or weather. But mostly i'm over public bodies underpricing infrastructure to get it started then expecting bailouts to complete it. The other thing is that they're getting two new ferries. What could possibly go wrong with having two instead of three. It's not like they ever need to take one out of service for the odd survey... And of course, because of the size they are, they have to go to 'straya for said survey... And yes, the discussion advising them to get three slightly smaller ones was had with KR as a good mate has been involved on the project. He was saying the fault line lies directly under where the wharf is so the piles are very complex, think he said they were some sort of spiral so it didn't all shit itself if when the big quake hits. Of course they would have know all that before they started |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 14, 2023 9:00:06 GMT 12
Reading through all the Kiwirail project information on the web, the whole focus is on reducing carbon emissions by 40%.
Cost, cost effectiveness, efficiency and reliability are not mentioned, or if they are, are not the focus.
Take a step back and ask yourself why KiwiRail has emissions reduction targets? KiwiRail, by definition, is a railway company. We already know that rail is the most energy efficient way of moving freight. So why make them cut even more carbon? It is the same logic of trying to get the world's most carbon efficient farmers to cut their carbon. It is a tautology.
Then, there is the overall scoping of the project and selection of the ships. It would appear bigger ships are more energy efficient, cause you do less sailings. Remove that carbon reduction target and you tip the decision making scales back to something more pragmatic. We have always had 3 ships running (plus Straightsman's 2 or 3 others). We know they need to go to Singapore or Sydney for survey and dry-docking. We know that sometimes shit happens. Having three gives far greater continuity of service than two.
It's like when you go travelling / back packing. You always take 3 pairs of undies. One to wear, one clean, and one dirty. If you only take two pairs of undies, when the shit happens you get caught out.
Then, with the ship selection, it turns out Stena have an off-the-shelf design for a ferry with the exact same spec's. They already have a bunch in service, and it is a modular design with regard to passenger and freight facilities. They have a wide range of interchangeable fuel options, ranging from LNG, diesel, oil and electric hydride. Imagine extracting gas (LNG) from Taranaki, and running our ferry fleet on it? No reliance on Middle East oil - feckin amazeballs.
Additionally, Stena had lease and lease to buy options. But for some reason we elected to design a one off bespoke option.
The big advantages with hydride sounds to be plugging into shore power when tied up, so as to not run diesel generators. Can't see why that can't be done on any other smaller ferry. The other thing they do is cut over to electric drive when slowing down. So when coming into port and they put the engine into neutral, they can shut the main engine down and maintain all systems, thrusters etc with battery. Again, no reason that can't be done on an newbuild smaller ferry.
The infrastructure issue starts with the iReX ferries being 30m beam, when the wharfs and existing ferries are designed for 20m ish beam. Hmm, perhaps if your new car wont fit in the garage, instead of building an entire new house with larger garage, just go get a new car that fits?
PS absolutely zero MSM articles has mentioned Straight Shipping in any of this. The reading public must thing Kiwirail is the only ferry service we have?
|
|
|
|
Post by OLD ROPE 👀 on Dec 14, 2023 10:10:23 GMT 12
Build a bridge kr tunnel and be done with it
|
|
|
|
Post by sloopjohnb on Dec 14, 2023 10:29:57 GMT 12
What tunnels!!!!!!
The 2 that are getting built in Auckland are just digging deeper into the public funds.
|
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Dec 14, 2023 11:36:28 GMT 12
Reading through all the Kiwirail project information on the web, the whole focus is on reducing carbon emissions by 40%. Cost, cost effectiveness, efficiency and reliability are not mentioned, or if they are, are not the focus. Take a step back and ask yourself why KiwiRail has emissions reduction targets? KiwiRail, by definition, is a railway company. We already know that rail is the most energy efficient way of moving freight. So why make them cut even more carbon? It is the same logic of trying to get the world's most carbon efficient farmers to cut their carbon. It is a tautology. Then, there is the overall scoping of the project and selection of the ships. It would appear bigger ships are more energy efficient, cause you do less sailings. Remove that carbon reduction target and you tip the decision making scales back to something more pragmatic. We have always had 3 ships running (plus Straightsman's 2 or 3 others). We know they need to go to Singapore or Sydney for survey and dry-docking. We know that sometimes shit happens. Having three gives far greater continuity of service than two. It's like when you go travelling / back packing. You always take 3 pairs of undies. One to wear, one clean, and one dirty. If you only take two pairs of undies, when the shit happens you get caught out. Then, with the ship selection, it turns out Stena have an off-the-shelf design for a ferry with the exact same spec's. They already have a bunch in service, and it is a modular design with regard to passenger and freight facilities. They have a wide range of interchangeable fuel options, ranging from LNG, diesel, oil and electric hydride. Imagine extracting gas (LNG) from Taranaki, and running our ferry fleet on it? No reliance on Middle East oil - feckin amazeballs. Additionally, Stena had lease and lease to buy options. But for some reason we elected to design a one off bespoke option. The big advantages with hydride sounds to be plugging into shore power when tied up, so as to not run diesel generators. Can't see why that can't be done on any other smaller ferry. The other thing they do is cut over to electric drive when slowing down. So when coming into port and they put the engine into neutral, they can shut the main engine down and maintain all systems, thrusters etc with battery. Again, no reason that can't be done on an newbuild smaller ferry. The infrastructure issue starts with the iReX ferries being 30m beam, when the wharfs and existing ferries are designed for 20m ish beam. Hmm, perhaps if your new car wont fit in the garage, instead of building an entire new house with larger garage, just go get a new car that fits? PS absolutely zero MSM articles has mentioned Straight Shipping in any of this. The reading public must thing Kiwirail is the only ferry service we have? Just thinking about the partnership that keewee rail has with mana whenua, one of those muppets (who I think is a director/board memeber) said it they wanted to create a true partnership with mana whenua. So I can only assume that the two iwi involved here have taken on some financial risk in becoming 'true partners'. Otherwise it's not a true partnership. Surely that board has to go. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Jorgan on Dec 14, 2023 13:50:51 GMT 12
What tunnels!!!!!! The 2 that are getting built in Auckland are just digging deeper into the public funds. And the ferries are not??... for ever. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 14, 2023 15:16:01 GMT 12
What tunnels!!!!!! The 2 that are getting built in Auckland are just digging deeper into the public funds. And the ferries are not??... for ever. I'm sorry, but anyone that thinks you can either tunnel or build a bridge across Cook Straight lacks understanding on many, many levels. The main issue being the cost, the next issues being the trenches, fault lines, geology, weather and distance. Did I mention the cost? If you think building a ferry terminal on a fault line in Welly Harbour is cost prohibitive, try building a bridge or tunnel over the several dozen fault lines between North & South Islands. |
|
|
|
Post by sloopjohnb on Dec 14, 2023 15:28:04 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Jorgan on Dec 14, 2023 21:01:35 GMT 12
And the ferries are not??... for ever. I'm sorry, but anyone that thinks you can either tunnel or build a bridge across Cook Straight lacks understanding on many, many levels. The main issue being the cost, the next issues being the trenches, fault lines, geology, weather and distance. Did I mention the cost? If you think building a ferry terminal on a fault line in Welly Harbour is cost prohibitive, try building a bridge or tunnel over the several dozen fault lines between North & South Islands. Name a tunnel that has collapsed after sn earthquake in NZ. Al thoseceast coast tunnels betwee blenhiem and chch ? No issues other than landslides at one end of one tunnel.. Ferries are costly to buy, maintain and run every year. Bridge would be easy. The chinese build bigger more challenging ones Think about the economic benefits. |
|
?