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?

  • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nzOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • MadMonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • Dave@lemmy.nzM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nzOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        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.

        • Dave@lemmy.nzM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

          • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nzOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Yeah, it had ballooned to more than double their initial estimate, quite frankly, I don’t trust Labour’s numbers on any of this.