High Speed Train link - Can't Berra to Sydney
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I can just see the pollies standing at Central, waiting for the 0728 with all the 'normal' people...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In the clouds
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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....
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High Speed Rail
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).
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).
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RailRev Welcome 
Interesting insight. Can you reveal how advanced or otherwise this sort of planning is? Wheeled rail [TGV], Maglev etc?
Comparative costings would be interesting but I guess that would be a bridge too far at this point? 
Interesting insight. Can you reveal how advanced or otherwise this sort of planning is? Wheeled rail [TGV], Maglev etc?
Comparative costings would be interesting
but I guess that would be a bridge too far at this point?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Interesting insight. Can you reveal how advanced or otherwise this sort of planning is? Wheeled rail [TGV], Maglev etc?
Comparative costings would be interesting 
but I guess that would be a bridge too far at this point?
but I guess that would be a bridge too far at this point?
Very Fast Train - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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:
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.
In the other VFT thread we had a month ago, I wrote the following:
Originally Posted by KRviator
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>
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...
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.
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...
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.
MagLev is not a smooth ride
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne,Vic,Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Southern Cross station was designed knowing it might one day happen, etc..
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which shows the flaw in the idea - what happened to the fantasy replacement to Spencer St station with a bit of rain?
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.
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
Two TGV Duplex coupled together (which is how they normally operate)can seat 1090 passengers - that's quite a few 737s
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.
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.
Originally Posted by ME
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.
Originally Posted by RailRevenue
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.
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.
Originally Posted by ME
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.
Originally Posted by RailRevenue
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.
Originally Posted by RailRevenue
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
Originally Posted by OZBUSDRIVER
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.
Originally Posted by OZBUSDRIVER
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.
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?
