I have already provided a quote from the kiwi rail staff newsletter saying that the Auckland to tauranga electrification is being kept under review.
Don't tell me you actually have completely misunderstood the following?
"When you look at the map of the North Island, the sections of line not electrified look small, particularly as the electrified Auckland and Wellington networks stretch southwards and northwards respectively. The point is not lost on advocates for the use of renewable energy who argue for the complete electrification of the line. Work done back in 2008 provides useful perspective to this argument. It concluded that to justify electrification, a route should be all or most of the following: at or near capacity, densely trafficked, steeply graded, involve a long tunnel or be adjacent to an existing electrified route. The routes to meet these criteria were Westfield-Te Rapa, Hamilton-Mt Maunganui and Otira-Arthur’s Pass. The first two (in practical terms one Westfield-Mt Maunganui route) meet the density and adjacency criteria while Otira-Arthur’s Pass meets the grade and tunnel test. This is deviating from the North Island Main Trunk, but given the density of traffic between Auckland and Mt Maunganui, it would make no sense to electrify simply to Hamilton. Another consideration is the incompatabilty between the Wellington network extending as far as Waikanae and the Trunk at Palmerston North. The cost estimate at the time for the two most likely routes was in the vicinity of $900 million – undoubtedly more at today’s prices. Obviously the lion’s share would be taken by the Westfield-Mt Mauganui route. The conclusion reached was that money on this scale could be spent on other projects which provided significant gains in transit time, capacity and reliability rather than on electrification. Of course, as the NIMT electrification project itself demonstrated, we don’t know what’s around the corner. One of the reasons why it got the green light originally was the impact on the country of rising oil prices. There are plenty of analysts thirty years later who have predicted the end of peak oil. But for a rail industry that always has to make the best of a tight budget, today’s realities are more urgent than tomorrow’s possibilities. Extension of electrification should remain an option but ultimately it ranks as a distant priority."
Kevin Ramshaw Express Editor.
I find it amazing that you could so completely miss the point of that article. Wakey wakey, what this Kevin Ramshaw (who is merely the editor of Kiwirail's newsletter) is saying is what I'm saying but in terms more diplomatic to people desiring more electrification. How on earth could you possibly interpret that to ever mean that electrification is being kept under review?
This isn't the first time I've wondered about your reading comprehension skills.
As for the matangi's I suggest that you take that up with the Kiwi rail mechanical design team based in Wellington as you seem to know more about the subject than they do.
Now, why on earth are you bringing-up this "Kiwi rail mechanical design team based in Wellington" in the first place let alone implying that I'm even disagreeing with them or that you're speaking on their behalf?
I'm not seeing any "Kiwi rail mechanical design team based in Wellington" making some bollocks claim that Kiwirail wanted the Matangis to be dual system capable. I'm seeing YOU say this, so I'm taking this load of utter nonsense up with you instead.
Grow up, and don't try and run away from it.