Sign in or 
Welcome! This is a website that everyone can build together. It's easy!
Share this
Campaign to Rail Waste to Kate Valley
There are in excess of 3.6 million tonnes of rubbish produced in New Zealand each year. None of this tonnage travels by rail.
The Council takes rail seriously
In closed sessions of the Sustainable Transport and Utilities Committee of the Christchurch City Council in April and November 2001 it was debated whether to purchase land adjacent to the Parkhouse Transfer Station. This innocuous, difficult to see, piece of land, had road access via a narrow driveway onto Kilronan Place. Due to the tall fences that existed at the time, the site was virtually invisible. Despite this the site was strategic, as it provided direct access to the McAlpine Street railway siding.
The announcement of purchase was kept under wraps until the release of the Christchurch City Council Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2002.
‘Adjacent to the Parkhouse Refuse Station, two parcels of land, totalling 1.5ha, were strategically purchased for a total of $1.13m, to provide potential rail access and additional space minimisation activities.’
The purchase also reinforced the strategic location of the Parkhouse Transfer Station, as the Metro Place Station is nowhere near a railway, and the Styx location while only a few hundred metres from the railway, has for some fifteen years been surrounded by a housing subdivision.
Examination of the history of the Parkhouse Transfer Station shows the site was chosen for its proximity to the railway. For further reading go to A history of the McAlpine Street Siding.
The McAlpine Street Siding from the air. The land the Christchurch City Council purchased was formerly part of Wilder's Transport yard, and is out of site beneath the siding.
Transport Options Considered
The Kate Valley site was purchased on 19 July 2000. Of course it would be years before the site would obtain approval and be prepared sufficiently for its first load of waste, but there was the immediate conundrum of just how to transport waste to Kate Valley.
In Transwaste’s Resource Consent Application of April 2002, rail transport was evaluated. However this hopelessly inadequate report did not consider rail a viable option. The following are extracts from the report.
‘The rail concept assessed involved waste containers being transported by truck from transfer stations in Christchurch, Rolleston and Ashburton to nearby rail loading yards. Two separate trains would then need to be filled daily, carrying up to 30 containers each. These would travel to a rail siding as close as possible to Kate Valley. Each train would then be unloaded, and the containers taken to the landfill site by truck and trailer units. Empty containers would then be reloaded onto the train, and hauled back by the locomotive that had just brought out the next full container train.’
‘The distance from Christchurch by rail standards is very short. Economically rail is most competitive over longer distances. Road transport is more cost-effective over this short distance for the volumes involved.
This is a flawed argument; it conveniently ignores the longevity of the project and the inherent excessive staff members, trucks, and fuel costs associated with the trucking operation. CWS currently has 19 truck drivers and 12 on-road trucks; figures that could be significantly reduced if rail were used. Road user charges (RUCs) for heavy vehicles were increased by 11% on 4 April 2007, and a further 9% on 1 July 2008. However this does not compensate for the seventeen years (1989-2007) that charges were not increased. The deflationary effect on those charges during those years was to effectively halve them. It is only a matter of time before a Government with balls will increase RUCs to something closer to cost. Dr. Cullen was quoted in the National Business Review 14 February 2003 ‘Contrary to popular belief, road-user charges fell well short of meeting the true cost of the roading network. Politically it would be impossible to put up road charges to the point where you are covering the cost of capital’. So in December of that year RUCs were cynically increased for light vehicles, and heavy trucks faced no increase. In transport research there is a saying – ‘any cost you do not pay for, is in fact a subsidy’, and there are a lot of costs the trucking industry does not pay for. If RUCs had been indexed for inflation in 1989 they would currently be between 1½ times to double what they are now. As for the economics, the report gives no figures, just an assertion that road transport is more cost effective over short distances. Short journeys are common for rail, and despite the above assertion are economically viable. A shining example is the frequent heavy shunt service for containers between the Port of Lyttelton and the NZ Express siding at Woolston; a mere 6km. With the abysmally poor payload that trucks carry it is clear that the flexibility of the ineffectual trucking operation has been chosen over the economy of scale that rail provides. And to top it all off the designers of the trucking and container transfer system, seem to have been blissfully indifferent to its fuel inefficiency (see Pathetic Payload).
The four additional load/unload cycles for the return trip for containers transported by rail also adds substantial cost not involved in the road transportation. Container loading/unloading is an expensive part of the transport operation.’
A fatuous statement if ever one was written; it conveniently ignores the so-called expensive transfer of containers that currently takes place on the asphalt pad at Kate Valley. Full containers are currently exchanged on the pad from road vehicles to off-road vehicles for discharge, and vice versa. If rail wagons are loaded/unloaded on sidings laid to transfer stations, this eliminates two load/unload cycles. The above statement also shamefully omits that road bound containers carry less than half the potential weight of rail bound containers; thus more than doubling the necessary load/unload cycles. Essentially the report has lied by omission.
‘Locating a suitable rail siding near Kate Valley would not be straight forward. Using the existing rail siding in Waipara would create a substantial amount of day or night noise from shunting and loading activities, as well as from truck movements through the township.’
The railway was laid through Waipara in 1880. Waipara township would not exist if it was not for the railway, and many of the houses are former railway houses. If the 285 residents that have purchased homes there thinking the railway yard would never be used, then they are naïve. Logs are regularly loaded at Waipara Yard. It is appallingly hypocritical that truck noise in Waipara was deemed unacceptable, yet the current CWS truck movements through residential areas like Belfast, Woodend and Amberley are considered acceptable.
‘Other suitable locations for a rail siding were not evident. The area to the south of the Waipara River is unsuitable due to the close proximity of State Highway 1, and the consequent difficulty of trucks getting safely to and from the Highway. This area is also adjacent to tourist attractions. There is also no apparent suitable location available for some distance to the north of Waipara that would provide room for the long siding needed for rail transportation.’
The only solution to this is to build a rail spur that passes beneath State Highway 1 to an intermodal yard on the east side. Here the containers would be transferred from trains to trucks by forklifts or gantry cranes, and vice versa. This would avoid the need for the fleet of on-road trucks, as the off road trucks used for discharging the containers could undertake the entire trip from the intermodal yard to Kate Valley. It would also avoid the need of the high numbers of containers, as rail bound containers can carry a significantly higher payload. Special dispensation could be given to allow the trucks to carry the overweight containers the remainder of the journey on what is a ‘local’ road. Given that Transwaste has already spent $2.8m subsidizing the upgrading the Mount Cass Road, they can subsidize its maintenance too.
‘Both road and rail alternatives would still require trucks to travel from State Highway 1 to Kate Valley. The capability for road for the full trip would need to be retained in case of unavailability of rail for some technical or unforeseen circumstance.’
Following this logic nothing would ever be carried by rail – the writers of this report are wonderfully ignorant of the fact that 14 million tonnes of freight are carried by rail annually – much of it being time sensitive. The fact that Fonterra has faith in rail to transport milk to its Hawera plant shows just how laughable the above statement is; milk is arguably one of the most time sensitive and perishable products around. A typical technical circumstance in which rail would be unavailable would be the extremely rare event of a derailment – truck smashes on State Highway 1 are a far more regular occurrence.
‘For these reasons, the option of rail transportation of waste to the Kate Valley site was deemed not viable, and road transport alone chosen.’
Pathetic Payload
The following is the weight calculation for the CWS on-road Mercedes trucks.
13,100 kg tare on-road truck
+ 4,220 kg tare on-road trailer
+21,000 kg net payload not including containers
+ 2,800 kg average weight of container
+ 2,800 kg average weight of container
43,920 kg gross weight (if the drivers weigh more than 80 kg then the trucks are overweight)
Road transport is generally useless when it comes to heavy payloads. The Mercedes on-road truck and trailer units have a net payload of 21 tonnes, but CWS has conceded the average payload is only 19.95 tonnes. Compare this with Kiwi Rail’s IA class container wagons. These specialised 72 tonne wagons have a net weight of 16 tonnes and can carry two containers of 28 tonnes each! Arguably the most inefficient and ineffectual way to transport waste to Kate Valley would be to use trucks; particularly when two trains a day would easily carry the tonnage.
The high tare weight of the on-road truck is due to the onboard ATIB 20-64 hook-lift unit for loading and unloading containers. These Italian built hook-lifts according to the company website www.ATIB.com weigh 3,000 kg. If forklifts or gantry cranes had been chosen rather than this quaint container transfer system, a payload of 3 tonnes greater could have been carried by the on-road trucks; a saving of 3,930 on-road vehicle movements to carry 300,000 tonnes. It is facts like these that make one wonder if the contributing councils knew exactly what they were paying for. Another consequence of the high tare weight of the trucks is the inherent fuel inefficiency.
During June 2006 hearings were held regarding CWS’s application to increase truck numbers to Kate Valley above 300 per week (600 vehicle movements). If the hooklifts had not been fitted to the trucks, 900 extra tonnes of waste could be carried to Kate Valley each week, or 46,800 tonnes per annum. Arguably if this amount of tonnage had been carried, this would have prevented the need to increase truck numbers.
14,285 loaded journeys plus 14,285 return trips = 28570 vehicle movements
21)300,000 tonnes annually
12,500 loaded journeys plus 12,500 return trips = 25,000 vehicle movements
24)300,000 tonnes annually
On 29 May 2008 Annette King announced a trial allowing trucks to carry heavier loads. The trucks chosen were the CWS Kate Valley trucks, and they were allowed to increase their gross weight from 44 tonnes to 50 tonnes under a special permit system. One would wonder when the so-called trial will end, or is this to become permanent.
11,111 loaded journeys plus 11,111 return trips = 22,222 vehicle movements
27)300,000 tonnes annually
Compare this with an IA class rail wagon carrying a payload of fifty tonnes.
6,000 loaded journeys
50)300,000
The total tonnage for Kate Valley could be shifted by a rake of eight to nine IA wagons visiting Waipara twice a day.
A Proposal; A Rail Spur at Waipara
'The Mail' of 27 July 2000 quoted Brian Yates, Hurunui District Council Engineer regarding transport of waste to Kate Valley; 'He said a possible rail branch into the site or at Waipara would reduce truck flows'. So the idea isn't new.
The first step in building the Kate Valley Rail Spur is it would have to be included as an objective in Environment Canterbury’s Regional Land Transport Strategy. From here, an application could be made for Alternative to Road (ATR) funding, as only local bodies are allowed to make such applications, even if they are on behalf of a third party, which in this case would be Transwaste.
A firm case would have to be presented in the application. For instance Transwaste would have to be supportive of the proposal, and be prepared to give the operator of the railway a long-term cartage contract, given the longevity of Kate Valley, this should not be a problem.
It is arguable the rail spur is commercially viable in its own right and should not need ATR funding. Transwaste is not afraid to spend money; it has already spent $2.8m on rebuilding Mount Cass Road. This sort of money would go a long way to constructing a rail spur. At 300,000 tonnes over a distance of 1-2 km, the Kate Valley rail spur would be one of the most heavily utilised branch lines in the country.
Tonnage Comparisons
| Branch Railway | Length | Annual Tonnage | Notes |
| Mission Bush | 16.27 km | 800,000 tonnes | Rotowaro and Kimihia coal plus steel |
| Rotowaro | 8.61 km | 300,000 tonnes | Coal |
| Gisborne | 212.14 km | 60,000 tonnes | 20,000 tonnes Ravensdown fertilizer, and the rest is general freight |
| Nelson | 96.64 km | 17,500 tons | Closed in 1955 for lack of tonnage |
| Oxford | 35.47 km | 8,500 tons (1955) | Closed in 1959 for lack of tonnage |
| Little River | 36.37 km | 9,200 tons | Closed in 1962 for lack of tonnage |
| Whitecliffs | 15,600 tons (1960) | Closed in 1962 for lack of tonnage | |
| Mount Somers | 43.17 km | 13,000 tons (1960) | Closed in 1968 for lack of tonnage |
| Fairlie | 56.89 km | 16,400 tons | Closed in 1968 for lack of tonnage |
| Waimate | 7.42 km | 19,000 tons (1962) | Closed in 1966 for lack of tonnage |
| Hokitika | 38.45 km | 52,000 tonnes | Tonnage figure is for butter & milk powder from Westland Dairy Co-op, in addition there is a little sphagnum moss and tar. |
| Rapahoe | 3.72 km | 192,000 tonnes | Coal |
| Ohai | 77.30 km | 120,000 tonnes | Coal for Clandeboye |
| Kate Valley | 0.50 km | 300,000 tonnes | Indicative tonnage |
Summary; A Integrated Rail Network
Landlocked Transfer Stations must close.
Intense lobbying from Redwood Action Group did not stop the opening of the Styx Transfer Station in 1986. Originally set in pasture, zone changes and development now see this transfer station surrounded by houses. This transfer station was constructed tantalisingly close to the railway line, and this was by intention. For further information go to A history of the Styx Mill Transfer Station.
When constructed, it would have been possible to lay a rail siding to the transfer station. Not now. The best thing would be to close it and open an alternative with rail access at either Belfast or Chaneys, or even both. Belfast has a luxurious rail yard set in an industrial zone, an ideal location for a transfer station. Chaneys no longer has any rail sidings, but there is plenty of bare land suitable for a transfer station with sidings adjacent to the railway. Chaneys also has superb access to Marshlands Road.
The Metro Place Transfer Station is poorly placed and should be relocated to the Woolston Railway Yards. There is no other sensible option. A new transfer station should be constructed beside the railway at Rolleston, and sites for other transfer stations should be investigated at Islington, Prebbleton, Lyttelton, Ashburton, Rakaia and Kaiapoi. The interesting thing revealed when studying transfer stations, is that they come in all shapes and sizes. It is possible to build a network small boutique transfer stations beside the railway to minimise road cartage. To see a map of existing transfer stations and the rail network go to The Metropolitan Refuse Disposal Scheme.
The Southbrook Transfer Station is superbly placed, and this is by intention.
‘We see long-term opportunities for rail in Canterbury, Northland, and the lower North Island’, so said page 22 of the Waste Management Annual Report 1998. Page 5 of the same report stated ‘During the year two transfer stations were constructed and commissioned – one for the Waimakariri District Council ….’ The Southbrook Transfer Station is strategically located beside the railway; we congratulate Waste Management for choosing this excellent location. The transfer station was opened on 23 June 1998; originally refuse was trucked to the Burwood landfill. A siding or loop could easily be laid to give this transfer station rail access.
|
RailAdvocate |
Latest page update: made by RailAdvocate
, Nov 2 2008, 1:21 AM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by RailAdvocate
No content added or deleted. - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
None
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
