Owen I can't help thinking that those in Parliament, or more specifically in the Government, know that Treasury will white ant any proposal that involves the taxpayer stumping up the readies.
Yes, but the context will be whether they want to pay for a new airport for Sydney or a VFT. Both will be very very expensive projects and will require significant government investment. So the question becomes which is the better choice? The train option delivers almost unlimited capacity between Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne (eg. just run more/longer trains - there are double deck high speed trains in France and Japan) OR do you build an airport that really continues the status quo.
As said, the VFT debate will be linked with second airport for Sydney debate.
It simply will not happen, there is not one infrastructurist in any form of government in this country. I struggle to see anybody in any parliament in Australia with a vision, any vision.
I don't think that's necessarily true. One of the problems with Australian governments is that they haven't invested heavily in rail infrastructure - and have invested in roads instead. Delivering a VFT would only take a small proportion of the money going to roads. That's changing with major rail projects already funded or being delivered. The Mandura Line in Perth is impressive. Victoria got more than four billion in funding to build their Regional Rail Link. Victoria also brought their main long distance lines upto 160kmh a few years back. There is a train line from Alice Springs to Dawin that was completed a few years back. So there is experience building. Part of the problem is that Australia built so many trains lines between 1870 and WW2 that we didn't really need to build too many in the mean time.
Long distance trains in Australia are generally all about freight. More than 80% of the freight between Perth and Melb goes by rail. The difference with a VFT is that it is about passengers.
At the risk of turning this into a rail forum, I wonder if a less ambitious rail project might have been the way to go. Tilt trains which run on current but slightly upgraded track, as in Europe could be done for less cost. Canberra to Sydney in a tilt train, with a journey time of two hours is not bad. A 7am departure from Canberra station, into Central at 9am, with time to reach a 930 meeting in the centre of Sydney is good. Four hours between Canberra and Melbourne is reasonable, and six hour Sydney to Melbourne is OK.
Not possible I'm afraid - the train lines you mentioned were laid out for steam trains - tight curves and no potential for the speeds you mentioned. If you can't do 350kmh, then forget it - build the second airport instead. The main game is Sydney - Melbourne (canberra is a bonus!),
Interesting insight. Can you reveal how advanced or otherwise this sort of planning is? Wheeled rail [TGV], Maglev etc?
It comes up every few years. But it won't be Maglev - that's just too expensive at the moment. It's also too energy hungry - which is why the technology isn't taking off. Steel on Steel is the proven, reliable, cost effective option.
Comparative costings would be interesting
but I guess that would be a bridge too far at this point?
Costings have been released for a VFT at various times. There's also been a lot of future proofing (eg. the Sydney Airport Rail Link was designated as the way the VFT would get into city, Southern Cross station was designed knowing it might one day happen, etc..).
Very Fast Train - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia