I think the main issue a lot of people have with the buy back of KiwiRail is the fact we paid to much for it and the concessions given to an Australian company, Toll. Even the staunchest Labour supporter would have to agree that buying back KiwiRail was not one of their wiser decisions.

A rail network owned by the state does not necessarily have to turn a profit as with any other state owned asset, it can be part funded by the tax payer and provide a supporting roll to business and communities.

Much like broadband it is a part of our infrastructure and should be owned by the state for the benefit of all our business and communities.

Road user charges do not cover the full cost of running trucks on the road. Rail does not have to either.

It the state is mining coal, profits should not be evaporated by whichever private enterprise holds a monopoly over the rail network, as has been the case so many times before.

The National government plan to expand mining, so why is Bill so keen to sell off the main means of transport?

With leadership from the government the rail network can be of great value. Or we could sell it for half the cost, yet again, and own nothing but an expensive maintenance contract, while paying a premium fee for freight.

Infrastructure should be owned and subsidised by the state so that the cost of business is lower, thus more jobs, more spending within communities (more jobs again), and more tax paid.

In WWII, trains were very well utilised by some parties.

Good idea Bill- we could get some unemployed person to apply for a couple of mill of legal aid then really sock it to them- seems a better idea than wasting money on Zhoui!!!!

Yes, rail costs a lot of taxpayers' money; but if we want the (real) environment and road safety benefits that arise from running a rail network, then we have to be prepared to pay for it. Because rail is a monopoly, means that it probably has to remain in public ownership.

Okay I read this guy's piece in the Dom. Short sighted and cliched, could well be his term paper. Let's hope the Aussies hang onto him and help create a more level trans-Tasman intellectual playing field.

The Aussies sure do ship a lot of dirt from their mines around the country to their ports. Just this weekend I listened to mate discussing the state of negotiations surrounding a coal mine in nw desert that would only be profitable to extract if using BHP's existing railway. BHP were holding out so that it would become untenable and they could buy the mine and profit from having the railway monopoly out there .

The the oil price dropped and trucking became viable, BHP lost the chance and the mine went ahead.

We have a monopoly on the railways here, and taxpayers also pay for roading. BIG difference. More trucks = higher taxes.

When the original sale of Railways went ahead to the scrupulously ethical Fay Richwhite team, Treasury approached some Wellington economists for an opinion of it's vale. The reply was calculated on the value of the land the tracks ran on, and the relative ROI on that amount - which if no trains run is squat. Land worth half a bn ? put that in a savings account and get many times the return! Treasury were recommended to sell the tracks and land as well as rolling stock.

There are many reasons why railways are not right for many infrastructure purposes, but is there any comparison between the cost of roading and the permanent way?

Isn't capitalism based on creating a monopoly and milking it before the comcom catches up with one? Has Billy Ingles got rocks in his head?

Find an old (1920's) map of Southland and look at the number of lines that were there shifting coal around. Not that a wise man learns from his own mistakes, von Bismarck was not so wise - where's Prussia now, eh?

Forget the upfront cost to the NZ TAXPAERS - look longer term. Toll sold it for a profit. D'oh.

Why should the tax payer have to cover the risk? The tax payer already has lost millions on this lemon. A specialised and capital intensive industry like rail needs specialists and proper financing. Not something any government can supply.

That report is a lod of rubbish. It uses old information related to which lines are profitable and doesn't consider future possibilities.

May I mention that it suggests trimming back the network to 2300km from 4000km. To me this says the majority of the rail networl is already profitable. As for the parts that aren't right now I''ll tell you whats what.

As an example. One of the already profitable parts of the network has milk trains from Oringi to Whareroa and Longburn to Whareroa. The line between Masterton and Woodville has just 1 train a week. Your immediate thoughts are probably to close it. However, Fonterra is interested in using that line for milk trains too.

May I remind you now before I continue that most coal in NZ infact travels by rail because doing by road would be impractical. I would also like to mention that 20 or so years ago that the Midland line between Greymouth and Christchurch was considered unprofitable and was marked for closure. Today because of the coal it is the busiest and a good money making line. Originally trains were only 15 wagons long, now 30. Now there have been trials of 45 wagon trains. The number of trains on the line has also increased a lot.

Another at risk line is sections of the north island main trunk. However TTR Ltd want to build a steel mill in south Taranaki. Although it will mine iron sands from the sea it will still requrie coal (both imported and NZ coal), and send exported steel to a deep water port. The only existing coal mines in the North Island are in the Waikato. So this marginal line might suddenly become something of vital importance for this proposed steel mill. Who knows which port they might want to import coal or export steel through. Maybe Tauranga as steel already leaves there and coal already arrives there, so it already has the necssary facilities for handling coal. So all up theres potential massive increases in freight.

Speaking of coal, the Stratford to Okahukura line is also under threat, but it runs directly through a massive undeveloped coal field. Thats a line worthwhile keeping. It would be foolish to close it now saying its uneconomic and then a few years time if a company decided to set up a mining operation. Most coal mines have access to rail, including the most recent Pike River coal mine.

All railway lines north of Auckland are also at risk, but once again it would be stupid to close them now. If the proposed Marsden Point branch is built then the lines north of Auckland would become very important. The idea is that land on Aucklands waterfton is very valuable as seen with the proposed developement of the "tank farm" and most recently Queens Wharf for the rugby world cup. This would see Marsden Point becoming Aucklands port, rather than having it occupy some rather expensive land on the doorstep of the CBD.

As for the expensive price paid, you're fogetting that when the tracks and structures (bridges, tunnels etc) were bought back it was just for one dollar.