High Speed Train link - Can't Berra to Sydney

[SeldomFixit]

And they doubted Nostradamus - next question is - just where in Goulburn the next International Airport will be sited. Perhaps a check of where the local real estate agents and councilors are buying tracts ?:ok:

[blueloo]

Don't worry - its the NSW labour govt. They can't afford to even think of the idea let alone paying to implement it.

Won't happen till someone with ability is voted in.

[AirborneSoon]

Hahaha! This one gets dusted off every now again. I wonder could they build a rail link and still offer a $49 fare to compete with the planes that service the route, and for which infrastructure is already in place? Canberra is building a fancy new air terminal which says to me they expect air traffic to grow not diminish over the foreseeable future.

Have you seen the size of the parking lot? :eek:

[Aim Point]

"Have you seen the size of the parking lot? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif"

You mean Windshear Generator!! :ugh:

[Dave Incognito]

Seeing as the NSW Govt just flushed half a billion dollars of tax payers money down the toilet on a rail line that was scrapped before it started, I think we can rest assured that this is a pipe dream...

[SeldomFixit]

East Hills line currently being duplicated - fact - please explain ?:cool:

[stubby jumbo]

China Southern, China Eastern and Air China are all now scrambling after the Chinese Govt announced in Feb 2010 that it was building a VFT ( Very Fast Train >280km/hr ) in a grid pattern linking Beijing in the north, Guongzhou in the South, Shanghai in East and Shenzhen in South East.

In other words ...." we are going to smash the Domestic Aviation market in China and you guys better get your act together and be Regional ( Asia) airlines....asap " !!!!

The VFT will be completed by 2016. Thats right 5 years to build :D

Minus a few villages , Bell Frogs, Panda's etc......but hey thats progress !

Meanwhile back in Petticoat Junction.....the Govts are still TALKING about the SYD-CBR run.

Hello..... is any one out there. ?????

Sure we may not have China's population to fuel this. But maybe some of the $$$$ from the Pink Batts could of at least turned over the soil.:rolleyes:

[neville_nobody]

Thats right 5 years to build

Well that's achieveable, when noone is going to sue you when you forceably remove them from their land. Having very little in the way of Environmental laws also helps the cause.

Achievement (http://despair.com/achievement.html)

[alangirvan]

PEK PVG 682 mi
PEK CAN 1166 mi
PVG CAN 747 mi

These distances in China, between Beijing, Guanghzou and Shanghai, in mile, do not look all that train-friendly to me, if the train has a top speed of 280omph, 150mph.

If anyone had the will power to do it in 1986, the VFT was hoping to give three hours SYD-BNE, three hours SYD-MEL, one hour SYD-CBR and two hours CBR-MEL. As a seven year project the VFT could have been running by 1995. The Channel Tunnel, which was a far more ambitious project happened.

[ARFOR]

Interesting subject.

Shanghai Maglev Train - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train)

Non-contact rail is already in operation. The Shanghai Maglev link is only 30.5klms long, therefore the top speed is wound back to maximum normal operation speed of 431 km/h [268 mph].

Transrapid, the German designers of this technology have demonstrated a normal operating speed on long distance sections of over 500km/h [310+ mph] :ooh: Transrapid have also proven how smooth and safe this form of transport is.

When you factor in the 'zero speed' [before airbourne on course, and after landing/wheels on] component of air travel, the relative difference in 'cruise' speed becomes small when considering the overall.

To build, big bucks even in China, over the life of the service, and all other factors taken into account, you get the picture ;)

[AirborneSoon]

We can't even get highspeed broadband in this country, much less a maglev train...:E

[ARFOR]

:} True AirborneSoon, True :ok:

Here is an interesting story from the US on Maglev.

Backers of maglev train say Chinese bank prepared to fund project - Las Vegas Sun (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/feb/03/backers-maglev-train-say-chinese-bank-prepared-fun/)
Fierro said development of the project could be one of the most significant economic events in Las Vegas history, because the city would become a virtual suburb of Los Angeles if trains could make the trip from Anaheim to Las Vegas in just more than an hour.

“People in Los Angeles could come to the Las Vegas Strip for dinner,” Fierro said. “This couldn’t be a more perfect technology for the kind of visitor we’re going to attract.”

Sounds like a similar fit Sydney - Canberra :E

[bubble.head]

It is the most sensible solution. However, if they can't get their act together to find a suitable site for a new airport, or fix the nsw transport system...etc

I can not see this project happening for many many years

[The The]

Sounds like a similar fit Sydney - Canberra

Yes, but who wants to go to Canberra for Dinner?

[ARFOR]

:} no one :E

But there would be thousands in Canberra who would like to do dinner in Sydney :}

[AirborneSoon]

Mind you if anyones giving out free maglevs Syd-Mel could use one and so could Adl-Per. You know just in case any maglev magnates need some ideas...:}

[ARFOR]

Maglev [magnetic] Magnates :D love it :E

[Capn Bloggs]

Maglev ADL-PER? Tell him he's dreamin! They can't even put a powerline over the Nullaboar (which is just as well, I might add :*).

[JohnMcGhie]

AlanGirvan: I am not sure the Chinese are intending to compete with air transport over those distances. As you rightly point out, the distances are a bit too large.

I think their main consideration is the cost of fuel in an oil-depleted world, and the train's ability to serve multiple destinations along the way. One noticeable difference between China and Australia is that while there's nothing much between our major cities, in China there are LOTS of cities of around a million people on the run from CAN to PEK :-)

I think the Chinese Government has rightly concluded that it will soon run out of fuel and airspace to move 1,400,000,000 people around!

The high-speed rail from Guangzhou to Wuhan (519 miles / 835 km) takes 3 hours exactly at an average speed of 280 km/hr. By air, it's also a three-hour trip, assuming one hour in the air, an hour to get to the airport and check-in, and an hour to get your bags and a taxi to your destination. Rail wins, because both stations are near the middle of town and the rail fare is about RMB 210, the air fare about RMB 1,100.

The train to Beijing is aiming to go 100 km/hr faster: they're testing at 420 and aiming to average 380. A seven-hour journey by train, as opposed to five-and-a-half by air.

I have traveled on the MagLev at 431 km/hr. Trust me, you would not describe it as "smooth". And the cost (including operating cost) has dissuaded even the Chinese from wanting to build any more of it. They will extend it to the other airport at Shanghai, and call it quits.

Brisbane/Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne should certainly be built: for exactly the same reason the Chinese are building CAN/SHEN/PVG/PEK.

My $0.02

[ARFOR]

John

Interesting. Not a smooth ride! :ooh:

How does it compare with wheeled rail [at that speed i.e. French TGV], and via air? from a 'smooth' perspective.

[Howard Hughes]

I can just see the pollies standing at Central, waiting for the 0728 with all the 'normal' people...:E

[ARFOR]

Just like they currently do at 'Snow Int'l' or 'Axe Memorial Int'l' :}

Hat, Coat :E

[AirborneSoon]

Maglev smacks of one of those brilliant ideas that yes is feasible right now but no isn't economically viable at our current level of technology. Give it twenty years and we may have found both an economical way to power the thing and a feasible way to build the infrastructure it requires.

At the moment it's in the technology showcase category, along with humanoid robots and monorails. And we all know how well the monorail concept developed....:E

[ResumeOwnNav]

I have sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook...

[Like This - Do That]

I have sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook...

:p:D:ok:

Like a mule with a spinning wheel ...

[The Hill]

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/simpsons-monorail.jpg

[teresa green]

Put it in the same basket with the hospitals, it might or might not happen. At my age I doubt if Iwill see either, and will be tucked up in bed at "Dunroutin" home for old airline pilots, (or any pilot for that matter) and they will still be talking about it, probably long after I'm off to that crew bar in the sky...(I am going to be pis$ed off if there isn't one).:{

[RailRevenue]

Hi everyone, I'm a transport planner and thought some people might be interested in a possible scenario for Australia to get high speed trains.

A high speed train in Australia would be financially viable - but only if you can capture the increased land value along the route. That's the challenge for government - a high speed rail line from Melbourne - Canberra - Sydney would massively increase the value of land along the route, so the trick is how to view that impact and deal with it. If you can get from Albury to Melbourne in 45 mins, that's going to have a big impact on development in regional areas. If you can get from Canberra to Sydney in an hour, then living in Canberra becomes a whole lot more attractive.

The most likely scenario for Melbourne - Canberra - Sydney is linked to the debate around Sydney's second airport. A high speed line would defer the need for a second airport for decades.

The plans for the VFT (Very Fast Train) in the late 1990s involved the train stopping at both Sydney and Melbourne Airports to allow for plane connections.

A VFT would basically eliminate flights from Melbourne - Sydney, Canberra - Sydney, Albury - Sydney, Melbourne - Canberra, etc...(as well as a lot of NSW regional flights) and would probably lead to a lot of international airlines deciding to consolidate in one or other of the markets, offering rail connections as part of the fare.

It is likely that a VFT from Melbourne - Canberra - Sydney would happen as a deliberate decision to defer indefinitely the second airport for Sydney. If you look at the costs for a second airport, and the costs of a VFT, and the benefits from a VFT in terms of land values, encouraging regional development, etc.. then it should become a bit of a no brainer. It is also the politically desirable option - no government wants to go through the development of a second airport.

Eurostar has more than 90% of the London-Paris market. Each train carries 750 passengers. A VFT would deliver a high capacity link (eg. even one train every half hour would massively increase the number of seats available on the corridor).

Travel times using existing technology would be 3 hours from Melbourne to Sydney (that's from Southern Cross to Central).

[ARFOR]

RailRev Welcome :ok:

Interesting insight. Can you reveal how advanced or otherwise this sort of planning is? Wheeled rail [TGV], Maglev etc?

Comparative costings would be interesting :E but I guess that would be a bridge too far at this point? :ooh:

[alangirvan]

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.

[Like This - Do That]

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.

[RailRevenue]

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 http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Fast_Train)

[KRviator]

A VFT will never get off the ground in Australia for a few very simple reasons.

In the other VFT thread we had a month ago, I wrote the following:

Notwithstanding Sydney-Melbourne is one of the most highly trafficked air corridors in the world, the NSW Government is broke, the Victorians bought trains that don't stop when you tell them to, and there isn't as big a benefit to Queensland as it first appears to make it worthwhile for them to help fund the project, leaving it to the Federal Government.

Which, in the last Federal budget allocated 7.5 Billion dollars to road projects. And 500 million to rail - and that was a big deal for the industry. Unfortunately, too many in the repsective Government's are very backward in their thinking when it comes to rail, remembering a time when 1/4 of all Government debt was "railway debt".


<Snipped everyone else's posts>

a high speed railway network could complement aviation and get scary overtired drivers off the National Highway.Which is what we've been arguing for years to get funding for the Inland Rail Corridor, it would mainly be a freight line, used to get thousands of heavy vehicles off the Newell Highway.

But, so long as the head of the Australian Trucking Association is a former National Party politician, any hope of rail actually being able to compete fairly with road - where "cost recovery" is a term found only in the dictionary - is null and void.

The existing corridors don't have the necessary curvature for such a high-speed network, coupled with the Canberra junction branching off at Joppa Junction near Goulburn, means any new high-speed train would need a significantly new alignment, at least north of Albury. The Victorians seem to have plenty of open flat terrain though...

The current infrastructure was designed, for the most part, well over 100 years ago. Airlines, partly due to technology, but also trying to save money have been very innovative and progressive, something rail has been lacking. Rail could be making money hand over fist if they were prepared to spend some money to make money. Some companies (SCT at Parkes is one) think nothing of doing so, and they're successful. Others still operate locomotives and wagons that arrived in the 50's...

It's all well and god to talk up the increase in land value, but there gets a point where just becuase something goes up in value, doesn't mean it'll sell for that value. That's simple economics, people need to be able to afford what you're selling, otherwise what you have is worth no more than what the richest person will pay for it.

You also have Governments that have sold off railways left, right and centre, railways that while costing money to run, also provided Governments with tidy profits at the end of the financial year that made them a worthwhile investment, but they were sold off to make a quick buck, run into the ground, and now require massive expenditure from the various Governments who've brought them back again to return them to their pre-sale state.

It's all well and good to suggest private industry involvement in such an endeavout, but, private industry in rail is a nightmare. Training is limited or non-existent, equipment is barely maintained in an operational state, yet alone a safe state, and most operators seem to be screwing everyone over in an attempt to make money by saving money, with these same opearators being the same people who'd tender to run such a railway.

At the end of the day, unless the Commonwealth Government comes up with the dollars, it ain't gonna happen. NSW is flat broke, Victoria wouldn't want a bar of it after their RFR fiasco, and Qld would barely benefit, if they would benefit at all.

Concentrate on upgrading the freight and interstate lines to get trucks off the roads instead of some VFT pipedream that won't come to fruition until my grandkids are of retirement age.

[JohnMcGhie]

No, the Shanghai Maglev is not smooth, or quiet: I was surprised. The ride is similar to a suburban bus on Sydney's goat-tracks: an undulation in the track at 60 km/hr becomes quite a bump if you hit it at 430 kph (but you jet drivers would know all about that!)

I was also surprised that there was quite a loud whine penetrating the cabin: I presume those electric bits are working very hard indeed.

Compared to the Japanese Shinkansen, the Guangdong to Wuhan HSE, the French TGV or the German ICE (yeah, I love trains...) the Maglev is substantially rougher and noisier. The ICE and the Shinkansen in particular are glass-smooth. I remember pulling out of Tokyo listening to the soporific "knock knock, knock knock" of the rails and thinking "Isn't this thing ever going to get moving? We must be still in the shunting yards." Then I looked at the speedo on the wall at the end of the carriage: it was climbing steadily through 180 km/hr! Those rail-joins, I discovered, are 3 km apart :-)

Compared to a jet aircraft, the MagLev is a bit like a run in an A330 from Singapore to Sydney, across the bumpy bit just south of Singapore, but a little noisier.

Hope this helps

[Deaf]

Southern Cross station was designed knowing it might one day happen, etc..

Which shows the flaw in the idea - what happened to the fantasy replacement to Spencer St station with a bit of rain?

[RailRevenue]

Which shows the flaw in the idea - what happened to the fantasy replacement to Spencer St station with a bit of rain?


This was a really interesting one....the damage wasn't caused by the rain or hail hitting the roof. What happened is that the hail blocked up the drains on the roof (and then froze solid). This caused water and hail to back up which eventually pushed through the skylights. The skylights are made of inflated plastic bubbles - they'll be replaced shortly. Shouldn't have happened, but quite an interesting problem that no one really anticipated. So yes, railways and aviation both have problems with ice from time to time.

You also have Governments that have sold off railways left, right and centre, railways that while costing money to run, also provided Governments with tidy profits at the end of the financial year that made them a worthwhile investment, but they were sold off to make a quick buck, run into the ground, and now require massive expenditure from the various Governments who've brought them back again to return them to their pre-sale state.

That's not exactly true. You're talking about some of the freight operations, but don't forget that there are lots of freight operations that have been started by the private sector. I think we're up to about five private operators running trains from Perth to Melbourne. They have massively increased the amount of freight on train. If your objective is to get more freight onto rail, then you need more private operators involved who can then provide end to end solutions.

It's all well and good to suggest private industry involvement in such an endeavout, but, private industry in rail is a nightmare. Training is limited or non-existent, equipment is barely maintained in an operational state, yet alone a safe state, and most operators seem to be screwing everyone over in an attempt to make money by saving money, with these same opearators being the same people who'd tender to run such a railway.


I don't think there's any evidence for this in the Australian context at all. Rail operations are heavily regulated. The same arguments were used in relation to aviation for years. Doesn't make them true. There will always be good and bad operators - in both rail and aviation, but to suggest that there are systemic problems would be hard to justify. Personally, I'm more nervous when travelling on RailCorp services than those provided by many private rail companies.

At the end of the day, unless the Commonwealth Government comes up with the dollars, it ain't gonna happen. NSW is flat broke, Victoria wouldn't want a bar of it after their RFR fiasco, and Qld would barely benefit, if they would benefit at all.

Absolutely right - the Commonwealth is the key.

Concentrate on upgrading the freight and interstate lines to get trucks off the roads instead of some VFT pipedream that won't come to fruition until my grandkids are of retirement age.

That's already happening - significant investment going into the rail freight network. But the VFT is about passengers, not freight.

Anyway, the relevance of the VFT to this forum is the link between a second airport and funding for the project - its going to be one or the other....and I think the choice between the two is a lot more balanced than most people think.

Check out how many people a VFT can carry:
SNCF TGV Duplex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_Duplex)
Two TGV Duplex coupled together (which is how they normally operate)can seat 1090 passengers - that's quite a few 737s ;)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I just love rail vs road freight. Mr Tokimura needs to get a volumetric load of radio base stations to Emerald from his base in Melbourne...lets look at the rail. Taughtliner arrives at the Tokimura loading dock...if Mr Tokimura is lucky it is already a road railer so just load up the truck and send it down to the goods yard. Trailer is set up on boggies and set on the track awaiting shunting to build the train for Sydney. The train is loaded up with 150+ carriages and is good to go that night. arrives Sydney the next morning mid AM. Train broken up and Mr Tokimura's load is then re-shunted on to the Brisvegas train, leaves that night and gets into Brisvegas mid the next morning...thats three days since Mr Tokimura sent his load...next the load is put on to the Rocky train and leaves that night. At Rocky to save the situation of reloading from standard guage to narrow, a truck is put under the tautliner and the load is delivered the next day to the destination more than five days after taking the consignment. Contractor opens up the load and finds the electronics are shot...nobody took into consideration the heavy G shocks from shunting....as opposed to...Mr Tokimura has a consignment for Emerald. A Tautliner shows up at the Melbourne dock on Monday morning. All load and the truck is away. Next morning mid AM the truck arrives in Emerald. All electronics check out OK, load is on airbag and is only handled once...(Story is true, just the names changed to protect the innocent)

This is what rail has to compete with. Even with the north south freight corridor there is still the issue of getting the goods on to the train and then shunted off and road freighted to destination. Trains kill trucks on bulk freight grain coal and ore. Anything else? the train is just too damn slow. Even the grain needs a truck to get from the farm to the land port with maybe a couple of silo transfers before it is loaded on to the train.

Freight??? Unless the subsidy is pretty steep trains cannot ever compete. Rail needs government to put impediments like hours and weights to even up the playing field. Current crop of the NTA have made the most economical piece of equipment currently working the highway..b-doubles..horrendously expensive to register as compared to single deck semi-trailers.

Rail is a union oriented pipe dream and forever will be. The reason road gets more money than rail??? Mum and Dad can use the road to travel for work or play as well as the truck...can not see that happening soon on rail...roads are revenue multipliers..rail will never get there for freight alone.


ANNNNND, just to add. if that deal is so good, The old ANL would still be running roll-on roll-off freight from the major ports....another union pipe dream.

[KRviator]

You also have Governments that have sold off railways left, right and centre, railways that while costing money to run, also provided Governments with tidy profits at the end of the financial year that made them a worthwhile investment, but they were sold off to make a quick buck, run into the ground, and now require massive expenditure from the various Governments who've brought them back again to return them to their pre-sale state. That's not exactly true. You're talking about some of the freight operations, but don't forget that there are lots of freight operations that have been started by the private sector. I think we're up to about five private operators running trains from Perth to Melbourne. They have massively increased the amount of freight on train. If your objective is to get more freight onto rail, then you need more private operators involved who can then provide end to end solutions.It's true. Victoria, run by Freight Australia, bought out by PN, asset stripped, the track run into the ground and then the track only was bought back by the Victorian Government for as much as PN paid for the entire operation. Tasmania, same deal.

As for private operators Melbourne to Perth, I count SCT, QRNational, and PN. Who are the other two?

Let's also not forget the privitisation of the track, as well as the trains. ARTC, while spending a few dollars in the Hunter Valley and re-sleepering the eastern corridor, also managed to put the two most high-profile trains in the country nose to nose at Tarana last year. But for the XPT noticing the points were set against his train we'd have had a hell of a big bang. They've also employed contractors who wouldn't know a dogspike from a tailstrike, have managed to derail quite a few trains recently through simple negligence and at best, do things half-arsed and at worst downright dangerously. Sure it might be their contractors they're employing, but at the end of the day, they're responsible for them, and it's only a matter of time before there's a godalmighty prang.

Freight operations started by the private sector? Hardly... Most of those are carried over from Government days in one way or another. The private operators, by and large, are not interested in small parcel freight as was the old Government railways. That being said, the rise of 40+ tonne B-doubles killed that off too.

It's all well and good to suggest private industry involvement in such an endeavour, but, private industry in rail is a nightmare. Training is limited or non-existent, equipment is barely maintained in an operational state, yet alone a safe state, and most operators seem to be screwing everyone over in an attempt to make money by saving money, with these same opearators being the same people who'd tender to run such a railway. I don't think there's any evidence for this in the Australian context at all. Rail operations are heavily regulated. The same arguments were used in relation to aviation for years. Doesn't make them true.Because of course a rail operator wouldn't send out a train with a defective brake valve. Nor would they allow a train to run around for 8 days while it's overdue for a weekly brake examination. And of course a rail operator in Australia wouldn't tell its' crews that "You don't have to abide by the TOC Manual, it's a guide only..." Because the rail industry is so heavily regulated this won't happen. But it does, and with frightening regularity, and not just by those operators who carry the nickname of "Dodgy Brothers".

There will always be good and bad operators - in both rail and aviation, but to suggest that there are systemic problems would be hard to justify. Personally, I'm more nervous when travelling on RailCorp services than those provided by many private rail companiesIf only you knew just how deep these "systemic problems" run in reality, you would retract that comment in a heartbeat. Look at my location for confirmation if you want...

Even with the north south freight corridor there is still the issue of getting the goods on to the train and then shunted off and road freighted to destination. Trains kill trucks on bulk freight grain coal and ore. Anything else? the train is just too damn slow. Even the grain needs a truck to get from the farm to the land port with maybe a couple of silo transfers before it is loaded on to the train.
Not quite true, but in the context of general freight fairly accurate. The East-West corridor between Adelaide and Perth has about 85% of the freight on the back of trains, and the same applies for Adelaide-Darwin. However, for intrastate parcels, priority freight and non-bulk loads, rail can never hope to compete now, due to the rise of heavy-haul trucks and the differential between government spending on roads and rail.

Freight??? Unless the subsidy is pretty steep trains cannot ever compete. Rail needs government to put impediments like hours and weights to even up the playing field. Current crop of the NTA have made the most economical piece of equipment currently working the highway..b-doubles..horrendously expensive to register as compared to single deck semi-trailers.As compared to trains (and planes) that operate in a User-pays, full cost recovery model, trucks don't. Just because it is expensive to register does not mean it covers the costs it requires. I think you'll find trucks, even single-trailer semi's, are rediculously under-priced if you look at them in a cost-recovery model.

I'd love to see the day when all heavy trucks are banned from Sydney roads during the AM/PM peak periods. Why? Because freight trains are banned from the Sydney metrop during the same time...Level playing field? Whazzat?