Comments on: NZ Herald on CCOs

By: max

max — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:19:24 +0000

I doubt any NZ company can fulfill the specs of the future trains. Not because the guys and girls down in Dunedin didn’t have the smarts or the skills, but because they don’t have the experience or manufacturing base needed.

They would probably build quite servicable trains, but certainly not in the time and possibly not in the budget we need. Auckland electrification is too important for rail in NZ overall to risk that.

Can’t we occupy them building new rail freight cars (or maybe freight locomotives)? Those are apparently falling apart, 25 years old on average…

By: Luke

Luke — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:14:48 +0000

Only the metal shell was kept, even that was extensively cut and modified though. There’s plenty more carriages left in England, or they could start from scratch. That is what they are doing for the new Tranz Scenic carriages and what they probably would have done in hindsight for the SA/SD’s.

By: admin

admin — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:31:00 +0000

The SA sets are just massively refurbished carriages imported from Britain though aren’t they? I thought the supply of them was pretty low.

Crikey, I was hoping for brand spanking new electric trains personally.

By: Luke

Luke — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:23:07 +0000

Hillside workshops in Dunedin are quite keen to build EMU’s. This would involve utilizing the SA/SD sets, with a power car incorporated somehow. They have it on a ppt slideshow they like to show visiting politicians, and they do get a fair few through there. I guess the issue for them is once the SA sets are all finished they may be lacking work, with closure once again on the cards like was going to happen just before they got the Auckland and Wellington rail contracts.

By: admin

admin — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:00:32 +0000

Obi, I guess on the flip-side to that one must consider the wider economic benefits that a $500 million contract in somewhere like Dunedin would bring. Of course if KiwiRail decides to build Auckland’s EMUs in NZ they would need to stack up in terms of price and quality. Personally I think it’s quite unlikely.

By: obi

obi — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 05:31:08 +0000

Luke: “but I have to respond when someone starts comparing any NZ politicians to Kim Jong Il, even Joyce doesnt deserve that.”

I was feeling mischievous;-) The idea of NZ developing and building a handful of trains from scratch when other people do it with both economies of scale and mature first class technology just seemed such a Juche-like idea. A rail equivalent of “Vinalon”, perhaps.

By: admin

admin — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:42:07 +0000

Obi I think the distinction that John Roughan makes between situations where just the ends matters and situations where the means to the ends really matters is a very good way to distinguish between areas where less accountable CCO agencies are appropriate and where they aren’t.

In terms of the trains, nobody really cares about the process by which they are constructed. We just want good trains that are relatively inexpensive. Therefore having a CCO or whoever building the trains would be fine.

By: Luke

Luke — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:19:55 +0000

Obi – so the best example you can come up with is an opposition politician opposing what the govt is doing.
I think the locos would not have been built in NZ regardless of the govt. This is because the locos were urgently needed, and building in NZ would have taken a bit longer because we only have small workshops as opposed to the massive facilities in China. Also the NZ built idea actually had been floating around for several years, from when Toll still ran the show. Hope this is not too off topic, but I have to respond when someone starts comparing any NZ politicians to Kim Jong Il, even Joyce doesnt deserve that.

By: max

max — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:24:59 +0000

“My point is that we shouldn’t just assume good governance when it comes to political interference, but should design it in to a system.”

Exactly what the system that is being set up is failing to do. One of the linchpins of good governance is accountability and openness. It’s in any textbook you look at, and more than that, it is the basis of democracy too.

“In my opinion, the best way to do this is for our elected representatives to set policy and targets and then leave experts responsible for execution.”

As has been set out very nicely, when the particular “execution” become very important, and when we are talking about choices that will set us up one way or another for decades, we can’t just argue about the ends and leave the means to the experts. I AM a traffic expert, and I don’t want that.

Also, it is superbly foolish to believe that the experts will be left to choose what they feel is best anyway (most transport planners and engineers I know favour strong PT investment – where is it?). They will be pressured to do what the politicians want anyway, whether that is via GPS funding cuts for PT or (hypothetically) via a reversal of that policy by the next government, or by having certain board members appointed and others sacked. And that is GOOD, because politicans are the elected representatives, not the experts. If we dislike their choices – vote them out.

However, the CCO structure as it is being set up will discourage the public from any involvement, or even knowledge, about these going ons. That is poison to a democracy.

By: obi

obi — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:03:20 +0000

Luke: “I’m quite sure that level of interference does not occur in regards to council departments at the moment.”

I vaguely recall Trevor Mallard criticising a government decision to purchase trains from overseas a few months ago. As far as I could tell, he wanted to manufacture them at a workshop in or near his electorate. It’s quite possible that if Labour were still in office we’d be paying a fortune for second rate trains built with job creation rather than efficiency of transportation as the primary objective. (And I’d add that Mallard would be dropping in to the workshop to give the workers “field guidance” like a Wainuiomata Kim Jong Il… but it’s late and I’m not feeling particularly argumentative.)

My point is that we shouldn’t just assume good governance when it comes to political interference, but should design it in to a system. In my opinion, the best way to do this is for our elected representatives to set policy and targets and then leave experts responsible for execution. That sounds like the CCO model being proposed for Auckland.