Passenger & Cargo Transport for the New Millennium

[Hurricane Annie]

  New Zealand was once at the forefront of rail and aviation transportation. Alas that was a long time ago. The last century has passed us by.  Over the  decades there has been  bold discussion and plans  for airship ports and light rail. None of which have eventuated. 

N. Z. Is an isolated archipelago in the far reaches of the South Pacific, with a sparse population of approx 5 million

What do the boffins of the Brass Goggles forum think would be a transport solution?

https://bahasa.wiki/nn/Ohakea



https://www.cityraillink.co.nz/rapid-rail-vs-motorways

They said he was mad


The  foil gliders are contraversial, with the green crowd claiming they will take out native sea birds.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsroom.co.nz/nz-investors-order-25-foiling-electric-gliders-for-high-speed-coastal-commuting%3famp=1

[J. Wilhelm]

Nothing mad about ground effect vehicles. Except that the Pacific can be a bit on the rough side. Generally ground effect is better used in calm waters like large lakes and "inland seas." Honestly a flying boat is better and can be made efficient and relatively environment friendly by embracing technologies that have been proven, but haven't been embraced by the bean counters.

There's an effort to bring back the flying boat, and it's a question of economics, really. There's absolutely no reason why you can't use turbine engines on a flying boat. You just have to be careful to mount them high enough to not ingest sea water. Same rules as conventional piston and turboprop engines.

The latest most fuel efficient version of aircraft engines utilize the transonic propeller known as a "propfan," and when the propfan is used as a turboprop without gears, it's called "unducted fan" (driven by a turbojet's shaft directly). Either version offer Mach 0.7 performance (a smidgen slower than large turbofans (M= 0,8), and about 0.2 Mach below old school turbojets, which were the fastest engines at Mach 0.9). But UDF/Propfan lower fuel bills by nearly 30%. Off the top of my head I don't remember how that compares with ground effect aircraft (was it 40, or 50%? I don't remember).

It's really simple, just a matter of economic will, really.

[Hurricane Annie]

Thank you for that explanation and advice Mr Wilhelm. The extensive NZ coastline can be rugged. Interestingly the early aviation here was in the form of float and sea planes, for domestic and international use.  NZ, Australia and the Pacific Islands being so distant from the bigger populations in the Northern Hemispheres, surrounded by ocean with no land connections, were ideally placed for long and short haul aviation innovation. [There is raging debate as to whether men flew in NZ before elsewhere.] Naturally sea and float planes played a big part in aviation transport here. Small planes were once  utilised for dropping off passengers and supplies to many of the beaches and inlets along our coast lines.

Business men and politicians with their own agenda put paid to plane and rail use. Trucks and cars became king. The bean counters and governments went for short term cost saving vs long term vision. Road building and repairs is crippling the country. No one wants to make the call for initial spend on new or improved forms of transport. It's not politically sexy.

Until a decade or 2 before I grew up there, one of the local beaches had a regular float plane visit.

https://www.nzmuseums.co.nz/collections/3000/objects/349086/captain-fred-ladds-plane-on-howick-beach



A brief history of flight in NZ.

https://dispatches.co.nz/recalling-captain-fred-ladd-and-his-amphibian-planes/



From personal experience, amphibian flying is fabulous.

[J. Wilhelm]

Rail is the second obvious choice. Efficient high speed transport, similar to that used in Scandinavian countries would make sense to me.  Hawai'i mostly uses traditional connecting flight between islands, but it strikes me as being very expensive for intra state mobility. Advance purchase of tickets can be as low as $40, but walkup rates can be $200 according to some sources. That's horribly expensive in my opinion even at $40. On the other hand if I climb on a car right now and decide to travel to El Paso from Austin that'll be around 580 miles (Texas is big!) Which means  that at a typical 25 miles per gallon, it's about 23 gallons, and prices are extremely high right now (but very low relative to other countries at say $4.60 per gallon.... So total cost is $106 for a 1 way trip. $40 for an airplane ride doesn't sound so bad, but a lot of people can't do that regularly unless paid by the employer...

Looking at a size comparison between Texas and New Zealand, while New Zealand has less than half the area of Texas, linearly, distances are quite comparable:

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-comparison/new-zealand/texas-usa

I think that underwater rail "Chunnel" style could be used to extend rail travel between the two main islands and even between coastal points, and bring the ticket price down for local commuters.

Really Texas desperately needs high speed rail. There's many ideas out there, but so far we only have the interstate Amtrak which is not business minded and is very slow. You still need to travel by car or airplane.

[Hurricane Annie]

 


[150yr ago] NZ was once an enthusiastic early adopter of rail. The linear geography of the land made rail a practical teansport solution in a new nation. We now only use a 3rd of that rail. The rest has been mothballed, left to fall to disrepair. The trucking  transport industry has a strong lobby group for roading.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_railway_lines_in_New_Zealand

The cost of intercity rail travel is is prohibitive to standard passengers. There are a few remaining tourist rail  networks fir luxury travel. Our landscapes in NZ are incredible. Many regions no longer have train connections. It has impeded commercial and social progress. If rail was more comprehensive and convenient , people would use it. The cost of outlay would eventually pay off  with multiple dividends. Car use is by far the most common transport, despite petrol being $3.20 a litre. [ in a country surrounded by oil reserves]

We do have a plethora of small airports, those though are slowly closing down. As with Texas, prices vary with the popularity of the destination, peak times  etc.  It can be way cheaper than travel by road or rail. Only you don't have the freedom of cheap car travel at your destination. Rental is exhorbident.

A Chunnel between the 2 main islands [inspiringly named the North and South islands] is out of the question. There's a major active seismic faultine running under there in the Cook Strait, capable of a 9+ megathrust quake at any time. There are frequentl [near daily 3-5. mag ] quakes in the Wellington / French Pass area. Nz is  nic named "the Shakey Isles" because of the multiplre large faultlines running through it and off the coast.

https://www.newzealand.com/sg/rail/

https://www.greatjourneysofnz.co.nz/










[/img]

[J. Wilhelm]

Yes. I forgot about the Ring of Fire. Well, in that case subterranean ways are out of the question. Perhaps NZ is a better candidate for VTOL, but that has never been an easy technology. We haven't figured how to store the energy densely enough to do all electric VTOL flight,so at the very least that means hybrid fuel electric vehicles. We're back in the air.

Nothing wrong with surface travel though, but it depends on the infrastructure.  Mexico substituted a great deal of air transportation with a new national toll road system and massive private fleets of state of the art buses. This lowered the cost for people who could not afford airplane tickets and would have been forced to limit their travel frequency. It really worked well in Mexico. I don't know if they got the idea from some Asian countries, but after the year 2000 the roads began to relieve the pressure on the airline industry.

[Hurricane Annie]

 
NZ has toll roads, more are planned. Its to catch cars. Bus services though have been reduced  and are definitely not state of the art. Traveling  between the regions to the  main centres has become cumbersome. Routes have been re routed and diverted to indirect travel destinations. Travelers have to go in the opposite direction to get back to where they need to go.

Bringing in better buses and better services would be a boon. It could cut  travel times in half and give the opportunity relax and enjoy the scenery. More so in light of all talk about reducing car travel. 

Hybrid aviation  could be an answer. There is  even potential for it  be subsidised by the bigger nations and corporations  that are developing the foil and airship technology. A fuel, solar power and electric energy sources combination possibly. After all we were being set up for airship travel  a hundred years ago.

From a personal perspective I see the benefits of  new tech plans, trains and buses. Environment, convenience, commerce, travel and tourism would gain from it. I don't drive and am reliant on public transport. Having lived near air ports most of my adult life, including a stint near a hospital helipad, its pleasant viewing watching  the smaller planes and helicopters  coming in. I can imagine a sky with hybrid air vehicles hoving into sight. Or an amphibians foil gliding in on the coast line. It would be a beautiful way to travel. I'm feeling inspired.

[J. Wilhelm]

One of the problems to address with air and ground transportation is security. After 9/11 (World Trade Center attack in New York) airline security became a nightmare for passengers. First there was the fear of a terrorist attack, then there's the issue of long lines in airports due to security protocols.

It's now common for people to wait for hours, more than 3, just to board an airplane, even if you're just going to a neighboring city. The result is that for short haul flights, one spends more time at the airport than flying. It's now been observed that for short distances in the range of a few hundred miles (which is what we're talking about) Americas requiring connecting flights now prefer to rent a car, and drive to the connecting airport rather than take short flight. It saves the aggravation of missing a flight or being bumped off the airplane arbitrarily by the airline (a new problem in the airline industry).


In Mexico, the issue was more economic, as in the purchasing power of the public, relative to cost of airplane tickets. But they had an additional problem. Crime on the roads spurred by organized crime such as drug cartels, meant that people didn't feel safe driving alone on an old highway for hundreds of miles. Assaults and kidnappings are a possibility on the roads since the 1990s, so the government took account of that in developing a new national road network, that was highly patrolled not just with federal police, but national guard checkpoints, which themselves could be intimidating to drivers. The busses solved all of the problems of safety, because people felt safer traveling in numbers. New roads, fancy buses, small efficient bus stations that looked like airports did 40 years ago. Easy to get in and travel with near point to point efficiency.

[Antipodean]

Because of the terrane here in New Zealand they had to use narrow gauge track when they first laid the tracks.
Because of that - trains in New Zealand cannot reach any significant speed.
Because of that - it makes truck cartage more competitive.

[Hurricane Annie]

One of the problems to address with air and ground transportation is security. After 9/11 (World Trade Center attack in New York) airline security became a nightmare for passengers. First there was the fear of a terrorist attack, then there's the issue of long lines in airports due to security protocols.

It's now common for people to wait for hours, more than 3, just to board an airplane, even if you're just going to a neighboring city. The result is that for short haul flights, one spends more time at the airport than flying. It's now been observed that for short distances in the range of a few hundred miles (which is what we're talking about) Americas requiring connecting flights now prefer to rent a car, and drive to the connecting airport rather than take short flight. It saves the aggravation of missing a flight or being bumped off the airplane arbitrarily by the airline (a new problem in the airline industry).


In Mexico, the issue was more economic, as in the purchasing power of the public, relative to cost of airplane tickets. But they had an additional problem. Crime on the roads spurred by organized crime such as drug cartels, meant that people didn't feel safe driving alone on an old highway for hundreds of miles. Assaults and kidnappings are a possibility on the roads since the 1990s, so the government took account of that in developing a new national road network, that was highly patrolled not just with federal police, but national guard checkpoints, which themselves could be intimidating to drivers. The busses solved all of the problems of safety, because people felt safer traveling in numbers. New roads, fancy buses, small efficient bus stations that looked like airports did 40 years ago. Easy to get in and travel with near point to point efficiency.

They are all important points to ponder.

[Hurricane Annie]

Because of the terrane here in New Zealand they had to use narrow gauge track when they first laid the tracks.
Because of that - trains in New Zealand cannot reach any significant speed.
Because of that - it makes truck cartage more competitive.

Our old rail tech is from the 18th century, built in 19th century conditions. We need something new, for sure. What's our way for the future.  How is NZ  transport going to roll?

[J. Wilhelm]

Because of the terrane here in New Zealand they had to use narrow gauge track when they first laid the tracks.
Because of that - trains in New Zealand cannot reach any significant speed.
Because of that - it makes truck cartage more competitive.

Our old rail tech is from the 18th century, built in 19th century conditions. We need something new, for sure. What's our way for the future.  How is NZ  transport going to roll?

If the Canterbury Provincial Railway was the first, then it's 19th C rail, no?

As to how it rolls. On the surface it seems you are down to 3 options. For long haul in and out of the islands it has to be flying boat with the latest propulsion tech, which implies developing new types of airplanes from scratch. On top of traditional jet airlines from the usual airports. For interior travel you have a choice or you can do both: 1. Build a new railway network with high speed trains, or 2. Renovate the highway system and promote large volume charter-type bus lines.  Option 2 is most likely the cheapest, fastest option. But the network is most efficient when you combine a new extensive road network and bus stations as hubs. Railway stations should also merge with the bus stations for maximum effect.

Add zeppelins for a steampunk touch. Why not? You go to the station, from train to bus, from bus to zeppelin and then back to port for transcontinental flight on a flying boat.

[Hurricane Annie]

I will stand corrected if I'm wrong, is ground rail an invention from the 1700s? Developed from older mining systems?  Nz though  did get rail at later date in the 1870s and our systems are loosely still based on that.

Your suggestions of a dual aviation transport system could work well. The rail and bus combination could be effective. For the life of me I don't know why rail stations in NZ are a goid hike from bus stops. Both traverse the line of the main highways. Putting main stations together would have greater practicality and efficiency. Transport here has too many man made obstacles. Mainly in the planning, not oon the tracks.

As pointed out by Antipodean above, NZ terrain is tough. Mountains, valleys, rivers and dense bush or rainforest, rugged coastline. We have large  industries in remote areas. Timber, farming, tourism, mining, marine in environments hard to access. Helicopters areoften the only option, it's still  a risky business . Modern Zeppelins  or airships can go places and haul cargo from otherwise dangerous or inaccessible locations.  Which is ideal for industrial use and rescues where other means are not reliable.

[J. Wilhelm]

I will stand corrected if I'm wrong, is ground rail an invention from the 1700s? Developed from older mining systems?  Nz though  did get rail at later date in the 1870s and our systems are loosely still based on that.

Sorry, I understood rail systems in NZ, not globally. Yes locos are older than that. Steam first appears in the 18th C.

[J. Wilhelm]

I will stand corrected if I'm wrong, is ground rail an invention from the 1700s? Developed from older mining systems?  Nz though  did get rail at later date in the 1870s and our systems are loosely still based on that.

Your suggestions of a dual aviation transport system could work well. The rail and bus combination could be effective. For the life of me I don't know why rail stations in NZ are a goid hike from bus stops. Both traverse the line of the main highways. Putting main stations together would have greater practicality and efficiency. Transport here has too many man made obstacles. Mainly in the planning, not oon the tracks.

As pointed out by Antipodean above, NZ terrain is tough. Mountains, valleys, rivers and dense bush or rainforest, rugged coastline. We have large  industries in remote areas. Timber, farming, tourism, mining, marine in environments hard to access. Helicopters areoften the only option, it's still  a risky business . Modern Zeppelins  or airships can go places and haul cargo from otherwise dangerous or inaccessible locations.  Which is ideal for industrial use and rescues where other means are not reliable.

Rails have done well, historically, even in tough terrain. Austria, Switzerland and Germany can attest to that. Mexican railways were developed across very mountainous terrain in alpine and tropical settings. It does require planning and massive investment. You'd have to turn new roads into toll roads to mitigate the costs. But if you plan railway and roads together you can create a new transportation authority that integrates all these services. Kudos if you include air transit. "Kiwi Connect."

In a small country where every service can be centralized you have an advantage. In the US all services are private, and split into a million companies. That in itself is a huge obstacle for new technology, because you can't standardize across different provinces. I don't know how centralized/ decentralized NZ is, but in various Southeast Asian countries and Mexico it's was possible to just build a single national communication network, for example, and thus it's very simple to connect the whole country with the latest tech in one fell swoop. The same applies for transportation. Monopolies will ensue, but you can give contracts as appropriate.

[J. Wilhelm]

Because of the terrane here in New Zealand they had to use narrow gauge track when they first laid the tracks.
Because of that - trains in New Zealand cannot reach any significant speed.
Because of that - it makes truck cartage more competitive.

Indeed. It's going to take rebuilding a lot of infrastructure. As long as you can tackle it on stages in a hub and spoke system.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport_in_New_Zealand

I'm seeing a fairly decentralized, multi company, multi provider approach to transportation. Buses dominate. Small rail has been abandoned.

In my opinion,small rail should probably be revived. Electric trolleys in Wellington in the 90s look very similar to the electric trolleys Mexico City had in the 70s through 80s.

I'm not seeing double decker buses. One of the things you see in major metro areas now is double deckers (you've seen these buses in the tourist areas of downtown Mexico City in the videos I've posted before). The larger new buses in Auckland look a lot like the "rapid" bus lines that zip across the main axis of Austin. We even have bus "trains" with two coaches connected by a flexible joint. Mexico City has triple length bus trains in the MetroBus system. But those long buses are difficult to maneuver in tight spaces, and that is the reason for turning to double decker buses.

Rapid buses for routes along city axes -they only stop at certain bus stops

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj5K2bbS7XY

Double deckers for downtown

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DikzfZpood0

You need to get double deckers for both intra and inter-city transportation. You need a new more centralized transportation authority, especially to connect cities. You can still have private bus operators competing, like airlines.

Double deckers for traveling between different regions of the country

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6yckhYaNI

"Greyhound" style highway single deckers for connecting "satellite" cities and far away suburbs in metro areas

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2K2W4lmjtAY

These last ones are very quiet inside. They've been using them lately as temp replacement for college routes from downtown. I like the ride, but they do feel very cramped inside. The setup is like the cabin of an airplane, and they have a special door on the side with an electric lift for people in wheelchairs, otherwise climbing the stairs to the cabin level feels like scaling a pyramid. Bicycles are stored below the cabin. They weren't built for frequent stops, but for long travel.

[von Corax]

Hackaday just ran an interesting article on why Ukrainian grain can't be shipped by rail.

[J. Wilhelm]

Hackaday just ran an interesting article on why Ukrainian grain can't be shipped by rail.

That's really interesting. The gauge had to be different *facepalm*

[Hurricane Annie]

Because of the terrane here in New Zealand they had to use narrow gauge track when they first laid the tracks.
Because of that - trains in New Zealand cannot reach any significant speed.
Because of that - it makes truck cartage more competitive.

Indeed. It's going to take rebuilding a lot of infrastructure. As long as you can tackle it on stages in a hub and spoke system.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport_in_New_Zealand

I'm seeing a fairly decentralized, multi company, multi provider approach to transportation. Buses dominate. Small rail has been abandoned.

In my opinion,small rail should probably be revived. Electric trolleys in Wellington in the 90s look very similar to the electric trolleys Mexico City had in the 70s through 80s.

I'm not seeing double decker buses. One of the things you see in major metro areas now is double deckers (you've seen these buses in the tourist areas of downtown Mexico City in the videos I've posted before). The larger new buses in Auckland look a lot like the "rapid" bus lines that zip across the main axis of Austin. We even have bus "trains" with two coaches connected by a flexible joint. Mexico City has triple length bus trains in the MetroBus system. But those long buses are difficult to maneuver in tight spaces, and that is the reason for turning to double decker buses.

Rapid buses for routes along city axes -they only stop at certain bus stops

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj5K2bbS7XY

Double deckers for downtown

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DikzfZpood0

You need to get double deckers for both intra and inter-city transportation. You need a new more centralized transportation authority, especially to connect cities. You can still have private bus operators competing, like airlines.

Double deckers for traveling between different regions of the country

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6yckhYaNI

"Greyhound" style highway single deckers for connecting "satellite" cities and far away suburbs in metro areas

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2K2W4lmjtAY

These last ones are very quiet inside. They've been using them lately as temp replacement for college routes from downtown. I like the ride, but they do feel very cramped inside. The setup is like the cabin of an airplane, and they have a special door on the side with an electric lift for people in wheelchairs, otherwise climbing the stairs to the cabin level feels like scaling a pyramid. Bicycles are stored below the cabin. They weren't built for frequent stops, but for long travel.

To sum up. Yes.

NZ  needs a more compatible and comprehensive inner-city and intercity transport system. Money needs to be spent on moderniation and extension of existing rudimentary services. Make it practical, usable and join it up. It would be a massive investment in  improving commercial and social function, which pays of medium and long term.

It would be a great opportunity to embrace new technology, new industry and new  renewable energy and fuel sources. Commercial  involvement and investment  could be encouraged, for financial backing and strategic planning. As in  the freight transport industry and larger prime industries such as forestry, agriculture and tourism.

[Hurricane Annie]

Hackaday just ran an interesting article on why Ukrainian grain can't be shipped by rail.

It demonstrates an argument for a more universal regulation  and compatibility of transcontinental transport.

The rail history was interesting. Humans have a unique compulsion to haul heavy loads and objects around

[morozow]

We, in Russia, are gradually reviving hydrofoils.

They were quite common in the USSR, and carried passengers along rivers and tourists along the coast.

And then capitalism came, and they became economically unprofitable.

But now they began to build and revive routes little by little.

Two years ago, for the first time in 20 years, the Meteor was launched.

Meteors are a legend of Soviet river transport, about four hundred of them have been produced since 1959. Cruising speed is 75 kilometers per hour.

Here there is a TV story about this event https://www.1tv.ru/news/2021-08-03/410810-na_vodu_spuschen_pervyy_za_20_let_teplohod_meteor_na_podvodnyh_krylyah

[Hurricane Annie]

Morozow, that Meteor hydrofoil looks good.  It would be quite an enjoyable ride. Russia is such a vast place. Nz has played around with hovercraft ferries before, which probably slightly different.

[J. Wilhelm]

I thought I'd just drop this here.

Solent Mk IV flying boat at MOTAT Aviation Hall, NZ

[Hurricane Annie]

I thought I'd just drop this here.

Solent Mk IV flying boat at MOTAT Aviation Hall, NZ

I have not been to MOTAT for many a year. .. They do have interesting artifacts there. Including a fascinating antique Michelin man, heaving up and down. The solent may be a relatively recent addition.

[Sir Henry]

We, in Russia, are gradually reviving hydrofoils.

They were quite common in the USSR, and carried passengers along rivers and tourists along the coast.

And then capitalism came, and they became economically unprofitable.

But now they began to build and revive routes little by little.

Two years ago, for the first time in 20 years, the Meteor was launched.

Meteors are a legend of Soviet river transport, about four hundred of them have been produced since 1959. Cruising speed is 75 kilometers per hour.

Here there is a TV story about this event https://www.1tv.ru/news/2021-08-03/410810-na_vodu_spuschen_pervyy_za_20_let_teplohod_meteor_na_podvodnyh_krylyah

That looks very similar to the hydrofoils my father built back in the 1960's, but a bit longer. He tried to start building hydrofoils in the UK, but at the time the government was subsidising hovercraft (a Great British Invention) to such an extent that he couldn't compete. This despite the fact that the hydrofoil could carry more passengers, gives a much smoother ride, can operate in rougher seas, use less fuel, etc., etc. He had hoped to get a contract for cross-Channel ferries but that went to the hovercraft despite being able to run on significantly fewer days a year due to rough seas.
In the end he built and sold a few to the Phillipines where they worked very well, but it broke him.

My hope for the next transport trend is airships (or Hybrid Air Vehicles) like the Airlander (https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/our-aircraft/airlander-10/), especially once we have bendable solar panels (https://solarmagazine.com/solar-panels/thin-film-solar-panels/) that would allow them to be almost entirely self-powered, zero carbon aircraft. The joy of airships is that they can land anywhere, land, sea, ice, and yes, even airports, if you must. The only downside that I can see is a speed of 60-80 mph, despite having a range of 4000 miles.