RAIL - Back On Track Forum

Some VERY sobering lessons here from California's HSR disaster project:

- Essentially the project has been hit by a bad case of "Express to my Station-itis", that is everybody wanting the express train to stop at 'their' local city/town station. Which causes the train to stop being express!

- Worse, the whole thing has become a lawyers picnic and too many compromises to please everyone has compromised the whole alignment, benefits, efficiency, cost and speed.

- Sometimes you just have to say NO to get a better overall outcome at the end. NO to diversions and NO to extra stops. All the diversions and added stops have added billions in costs, which has dragged down the BCR.

With the absolutely enormous debt due to Corona and 2008 GFC and also rapidly increasing interest rates and cost of living, I think the HSR proposal in Australia, at least as an airline replacement running from MEL-SYD-BNE is a non-starter.

Much better proposal to consider is to aim for halving the travel time on the MEL-SYD-BNE route through more services and better track alignment and rollingstock.

The thing that bothers me about these mega projects is that these cost blow outs are a KNOWN thing. They are so common that they are to be expected. Just increasing the contingency for unknowns is unsustainable as the BCRs for the project will go right down if that is too high.

They could get Brisbane to Sydney down to 7 hours with fast rail, just with duplication, electrification and tunneling through some ranges. 

https://twitter.com/nonstopeurotrip/status/1556144286881693696

====

Malaysia KTM ETS Business Class Train KL Sentral to Butterworth

https://twitter.com/railjournal/status/1560663596698374146

In the House of Representatives today Infrastructure Minister Catherine King has presented a Bill for an Act to establish the High Speed Rail Authority, and for related purposes. (High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022).

High Speed Rail Authority legislation introduced to Parliament

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/news/high-speed-rail-authority-legislation-introduced-parliament

8 September 2022

The Australian Government has introduced legislation to Parliament to establish the High Speed Rail Authority.

The Authority will build on previous work including a comprehensive study that found High Speed Rail was not only viable, but would return over $2 for every $1 of investment.

Running along the East Coast from Brisbane to Melbourne, with stops in Canberra, Sydney and regional centres, a high-speed rail network could allow passengers to travel between major cities and key regional cities at speeds exceeding 250 km/h.

The Authority is designed to provide independent advice to governments on high speed rail planning and delivery, and will lead the coordination with states and territories.

The Authority will be overseen by a Board, drawn from experts in the rail and infrastructure sector.

Faster rail will continue under the Authority, with the functions of the National Faster Rail Agency absorbed into the Authority and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts.

The first priority of the Authority will be planning and corridor works for the Sydney to Newcastle section of the high-speed rail network, backed by a $500 million commitment from the Australian Government.

This commitment will see corridor planning and early works progress in this fast-growing region of the east coast.

====

Media Release  8th September 2022

https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/c-king/media-release/high-speed-rail-gathers-speed

The Hon Catherine King MP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government

High speed rail gathers speed

The Australian Government is moving a step closer to high speed rail by introducing legislation to establish the High Speed Rail Authority.

The Authority will build on previous work including the comprehensive study, commissioned under former Infrastructure Minister and now Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, that found high speed rail was not only viable, but would return over $2 for every $1 of investment.

A high-speed rail network could allow passengers to travel between major cities and significant regional cities at speeds exceeding 250 km/h.

The first priority of the Authority will be planning and corridor works for the Sydney to Newcastle section of the high-speed rail network, backed by a $500 million commitment from the Australian Government.

This commitment will see corridor planning and early works progress in this fast-growing region of the east coast.

While the Authority works closely with the New South Wales Government on this section, it will continue to advance plans for other sections of the high-speed rail network, which will eventually connect Brisbane to Melbourne, with stops in Canberra, Sydney and regional centres.

The Authority will provide independent advice to governments on high speed rail planning and delivery, and will lead the coordination with states and territories.

The Authority will be overseen by a Board, drawn from experts in the rail and infrastructure sector.

Faster rail will also continue to be advanced under the Authority, with the functions of the National Faster Rail Agency being undertaken within the Authority and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts.

High speed rail will revolutionise interstate travel on the east coast, providing a fast alternative for people to move between cities and regional centres, promoting sustainable settlement patterns and creating broad economic benefits for regional centres.

Quotes attributable to Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Minister Catherine King:

"High-speed rail offers the promise to change the lives of millions of Australians, especially in our regions, while also bringing our east coast capitals closer together.

"This is a visionary investment in opening up our regions to greater opportunity.

"A high-speed rail network recognises the importance of prosperity in our regions, which will benefit from enhanced connection to our major cities and international gateways.

"No project captures the imagination of Australians quite like high-speed rail, and we are committed to realising the massive benefits this project could bring.

"This is a long-term project, but with the pragmatic advice of the High Speed Rail Authority we can take a genuine path forward."

https://twitter.com/AusGovInfra/status/1567676182417604608

Interview on ABC Brisbane Drive High Speed Rail 8th September 2022

Host Steve Austin, with segments from The Hon Catherine King MP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government,
and follow on discussion with Robert Dow RAIL Back On Track.

Segment --> https://backontrack.org/docs/abcbris/abcdrive_rd_8sep22.mp3 MP3 7.1MB

Facebook ...

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1567943134205837312

    

I doubt we will ever see high speed rail in my lifetime in Australia and I'm only in my early 40's.

More talk and no action I would suspect.

A lot of wider-community voices raised on this one, most clueless or politically based, so here's my 6c worth, with inflation!   

I'm not an "easy fan" of this - if it made "easy sense", then North America would have "easily embraced" HSR decades ago...they are still struggling.

I am though also a train nerd, so the only way I can see this being politically, socially and economically sold, is to QUAD track the designated HSR corridor - to allow both regional and longer distance services to operate, with a limited number of inter-change points, between the regional and longer distance services.

There's simply no known power on Earth, that will commit to that scale of HSR corridor project....so other than God chipping in with a miracle, this one's going to be true mission impossible!

You dont need a full quad track corridor to permit regional and long distance.

The stations just have passing loops to allow long distance trains to overtake regional all stoppers

China - High Speed Rail

Quotef it made "easy sense", then North America would have "easily embraced" HSR decades ago...they are still struggling.

North America struggles with any sort of public transport or rail project.
Projects are hamstrung by complex laws and funding arrangements.
There's no political consensus.

If they are struggling, it has no relevance to the rest of the world to be honest.

And HS2 in the UK?

The UK has an insane amount of environmental regulation, and they did come in VERY late with Crossrail too.

But the HS1 project went well as far as I know.

Quote from: Gazza on September 16, 2022, 22:47:37 PMYou dont need a full quad track corridor to permit regional and long distance.

The stations just have passing loops to allow long distance trains to overtake regional all stoppers

For reference the passing loops overseas are long distance passing loops that are km's in length for the higher speed services. Not like the 700m ones we have here

Actually for a hsr station its only about 1 to 1.5km

Still in the km range

Quote from: Gazza on September 19, 2022, 10:13:45 AM

Quotef it made "easy sense", then North America would have "easily embraced" HSR decades ago...they are still struggling.

North America struggles with any sort of public transport or rail project.
Projects are hamstrung by complex laws and funding arrangements.
There's no political consensus.

If they are struggling, it has no relevance to the rest of the world to be honest.

Because HSR does NOT work in countries like AUS/USA....the distances are often too long and particularly in Oz's case, the population not large enough - only QUAD tracking HSR in Oz could politically sell it!

Quote from: SteelPan on September 25, 2022, 19:07:23 PMonly QUAD tracking HSR in Oz could politically sell it!

Lol Why do you insist it need to be quad track?

I already said that you can run regional and long distance services on a dual track quite easily without really degrading either stopping pattern.


There is no need to quad track.

Quote from: Gazza on September 25, 2022, 20:44:02 PM

Quote from: SteelPan on September 25, 2022, 19:07:23 PMonly QUAD tracking HSR in Oz could politically sell it!

Lol Why do you insist it need to be quad track?

So....how are you going to explain to the all the taxpayers, who's train will

I already said that you can run regional and long distance services on a dual track quite easily without really degrading either stopping pattern.


There is no need to quad track.

You need quad....no quad, no political sell of HSR....

Why do  you need a quad to politically sell it?

If the government said

"This line will feature high speed services between cities, as well as regional services stopping at larger towns, plus a limited number of major interchanges at Melbourne, Albury, Canberra, Sydney, Newcastle, Coffs and Brisbane"

then isn't that enough to politically sell it?

Hope this explains it.

Here is an example timetable from the Shinkansen.


Yellow NOZOMI trains are the fast ones between cities. They only stop at the major cities. 7 stops total. 2.5h journey. There is a long non stop section in the middle.

The blue KODAMA trains are the regional ones. They make all stops (18 stops total)., taking 4 hours.
But of course you can interchange between the two.

There are other services running too.

So they have clearly demonstrated you don't need a continuous quad track to provide both express and all stops.

But how is it so?

Lets look at one of the minor regional stations that is bypassed by the express. Mikawa Anjo.


The line is dual track (1) , but about 400m away from the station the track splits into 4 (2), with the express services running straight through the middle without stopping (3) , and the regional all stoppers able to get out of the way pulling into the side platforms. After the station the trains can accelerate and the lines merge back from 4 to 2.


Think of it like how a rest area works on a Freeway. Traffic on the motorway usually flows nonstop, but if someone wishes to stop they pull off the motorway and park.

So in the same manner, on a HSR line, the trains flow fairly nonstop, but if they need to stop at a station, they pull off the main track.


This is the same method used worldwide to allow the seamless concurrent operation of non stop and all stop trains on a high speed line, which means the line benefits both the big cities, and the smaller regional places in between. For example on this line in Greece, you can see its a dual track line, and only becomes 4 tracks at the actual station.







So why wouldn't this design work in Australia?

And if timings are right you can have same platform transfers.

Having used the HSR network mainland China, I can also attest that you do not need full quad track to service regional towns. I was mainly travelling between big cities but our trains regularly went through townships (at 350km/H mind you) where the line splits into a quad for a short section to allow for a regional service station in the town. The rest is dual track.

I don't know of anywhere in the world that runs full quad track HSR. It is all dual track with quad for stations. There is zero reason Australia would need to have full quad track HSR.

https://twitter.com/railjournal/status/1583135435609341954

https://twitter.com/CatherineKingMP/status/1595650632048078848

Sydney Morning Herald --> High-speed Sydney to Melbourne rail plan 'will never work': infrastructure tsar $

QuoteOne of the world's top infrastructure tsars says planners and the prime minister should forget high-speed rail between the eastern capitals and focus on faster trains around Sydney and other sprawling urban areas.

Sir David Higgins – the Australian-born chairman of London's Gatwick Airport and former chair of the UK's high-speed rail authority – predicted the Sydney to Melbourne route would "never really work" as high-speed rail. ...

Yeah thats right, just keep spending money in capital cities and forget regional australia.

As the saying goes. N S W Newcastle Sydney Wollongong.

Regional fast rail, for all states/territories is a very much higher priority to me than high speed rail.

Additionally suburban rail networks need to be sorted properly as well.

We simply don't have the financial resources for east coast high speed rail, linking Melbourne, Sydney & Brisbane for example.

There is relatively cheap transport between the capitals now, it is called aeroplanes. Interstate rail may improve as regional fast rail improves.

But the project is doing both at once!

-HSR sorts suburban networks by segregating express trains (Much like RRL in Vic).
Eg if you were in Newcastle or the Central Coast, your train would get into Sydney via a more direct tunnel.
This frees up space for extra services on the existing line to Hornsby.

-HSR sorts out regional rail.
Particularly around the Sydney basin, there is no way to provide a regional service with an attractive speed to even fairly close destinations like Goulburn or Bathurst.
Saving 10 mins is cold comfort when the journey is taking 2 or 3 hours still.

-I don't really see the air travel replacement aspect as the main part (But it would def replace air travel to places like Albury, Coffs, Port Macquarie etc) Rather, the project is a new trunk line.

Vics RFR project was a success, but I think that's largely in part due the approaches to Melbourne being fairly flat and straight, so it wasn't a huge effort to get it up to scratch.
For Sydney, it's a full rebuild, eg particularly around the Hawkesbury, around Picton etc, and that gets regional trains through faster.

-We def do have the financial resources. Look at what was spent on Jobkeeper, submarines etc. And this is a project that will generate a positive return.

IMHO I don't think there is a strong case to build HSR on equity grounds or as a coverage service as its primary goal. The primary goal needs to be maximising 'bums on seats'.

For HSR to work it needs demonstrate a pass on both absolute and relative merit. First it has to be viable, second it has to be the same or better than the alternatives. Maybe it has the first one of these (skeptical), but it doesn't have the other. The 'busy air corridor' argument between Melbourne and Sydney ignores the fact that Western Sydney Airport is currently under construction, and that Melbourne Airport is going to get a parallel runway. The planes are also not the largest and you can get bigger planes if need be.

The "But its viable" argument

Airlines are viable on private investment and private rates of return. They are viable at a higher rate of return than HSR is, which is only viable at a non-commercial rate of return, hence the government investment required. In other words, Airlines can pay back the cost of the cash and a surplus on top of that, and taxes to the government, HSR can only pay back the cost of cash. What is the argument for replacing a self-supporting mode with one that isn't self-supporting?

Regional Rapid Rail

Regional Rapid Rail is the first port of call IMHO.

- The same or better journey times than driving on motorways
- You get the daily passenger market, so high use all day
- Opportunity to reclaim motorway lanes similar to Perth
- Politically favourable - public likes fast cars, but likes faster trains more

Everywhere else

Fast or faster rail to Canberra would be viable IMHO, as it would fall well within a 3 hr window.

From my own experiences of riding the XPT (travelled first class), it is slow and there is no WiFi.
It took an hour to go from ordering food to delivering it. They also make you check in your luggage in like the airport. If you are going from Southern Cross in Melbourne, that closes 30 min before the train departs. Which is the same 30 min check-in window as domestic airlines.

That said, there is no doubt the XPT needs an upgrade as the train is at the end of its life, and the track and the rail alignment far beyond that. Assets have a lifetime, and after that they need to be replaced. Ironing out the alignment progressively and getting faster trains - say 160 - 200 km/hr - would cut the travel time right down and make it a better proposition.

We need to speak in specifics with these upgrades.

Steam ironing is what is happening Beerburrum to Nambour, the corridor is going from point A to B and you can clearly see how it would be straightened broadly following the corridor.


Meanwhile, look at the XPT alignment from Melbourne to Sydney. This isnt some passive steam ironing needed, its a full rebuild or re-routing. And if you are going to that effort, future proof for HSR.



I think a logical staging would be something like

-Newcastle To Paramatta (worst most rugged bit of line, Newcastle urgently needs faster trains)
-Paramatta to Yass/Canberra (Fix up southern highlands section)
-Paramatta to Sydney CBD (expensive project due to tunnel, but would also relieve pressure on western line)
-Brisbane to Ballina (existing gold coast line would gain extra stops as gold coast grows, this would become true express )
-Melbourne to Albury (actually a fairly straight line as it is, but would need new route around Wandong/ Seymour)
-Albury to Yass  (fairly significant 250km long stage )
-Newcastle to Gold Coast (longest stretch, cannot really be staged)

One stage every 5 years, so 35 years.

As for airlines and rate of return etc.

A similar argument gets made about roads. You build a toll road and its "self supporting" so the private sector invests, versus an urban rail line or bus route, which needs ongoing subsidy.

So it's a similar mindset here.

So why would I do it?
One is because rail travel is more sustainable.
Second, rail can spurn urban development.
Third because the infrastructure is versatile.

Think of it this way.

Say you were still obsessed with replacing air travel and couldn't think about anything else.
To replace air travel would only need about 4tph in peak.
To replace regional rail on this corridor would only need 1tph (Eg I imagine the XPT would get replaced by an all stops HSR, with coach connections to small towns, would still be several hours faster)

Great, that means we still haves pace for  a solid 10+ tph that can be using this infrastructure and you could do a lot, particularly with the expensive part, the CBD access tunnels.
And it is these services which truly make the project viable.

For example, you could run a 4tph short haul service from Sydney to Newcastle
Or 4tph from Melbourne to Seymour / 2tph to Shepparton,Wangaratta, Albury.
Or 6tph Brisbane to Robina
Or 2tph to Bowral and Goulburn.

So you are actually helping out a large number of regional towns, and the service would have an absolute time advantage compared to driving.

If the HSR was only going to be used by a train running direct from Sydney to Melbourne to Brisbane, I would agree it's a waste of money.

But other countries have demonstrated it is possible to run multiple tiers of service, eg the High speed line in the Netherlands has international services to Brussels and beyond, but it also has a high speed shuttle from Amsterdam to Rotterdam.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600613392179503104[/tiwtter]

Well, public transport is subsidised because the cost of expanding a road to accomodate additional users is extremely high as we have seen in other threads. For example the M1 Daisy Hill motorway expansion. Roads and parking are also mis-priced because it is politically difficult to implement road user charges and parking fees and also win elections.

An estimated cost per additional peak hour road user for the M1 Daisy Hill motorway expansion (assuming same user makes a return trip on the same day) is something like:

-  $500 million for the road widening component (estimate of the road component cost)
-  1600 vehicles/direction/hour in peak
-  1.2 passengers/vehicle loading = +1920 added users per day

= $260,416 per added peak hour road user (or half this if you want a per additional peak car trip figure).

Figures like that suggest that Jonno is right about high cost roads.

Subsidising public transport is cheaper than paying that, which is why PT is subsidised. There are also equity arguments as well, as not everyone can, can afford to, or should drive.

That said, I don't think many of these points transfer over to say HSR vs Airlines. People who are catching planes are not imposing delay costs on car users or train users or anyone else.

The 'Urban Development' argument is also spurious IMHO. Why? It is double-counting the benefits. Urban development would occur due to people moving to consume the newly created time saving benefits (induced demand). To count both the time saving benefits and the development is to count twice.

If there were no time saving benefits to be had, then there would be no motive to move there either. The value of the development is thus already incorporated into the value of the time saving estimate.

As for trying to discount Mr Higgs opinion, it so happens he was also CEO of Network Rail UK and chair of UK HS2. Now I don't place much weight on authorities - merits are worked from arguments for or against; But I would probably give more weight to an expert with actual HSR rail experience, than a critical tweet from someone who appears to be a comedian/parody account.

So in the case of a new line along the east coast, the CBD approaches would avoid the need for adding freeway lanes. Eg the M1 from Sydney to Newcastle is 3 lanes through some rugged terrain, and there are long term investigations for a 2nd freeway to the Central coast from western Sydney, so a new line could avoid the need for this.

Quotehttps://www.hawkesburygazette.com.au/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/eTBbQGqUAgjVpgRS4SQUUF/ef120ed0-6f4a-420a-8b69-171de66a437c.png/r228_9_2456_3167_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

QuoteThe 'Urban Development' argument is also spurious IMHO. Why? It is double-counting the benefits. Urban development would occur due to people moving to consume the newly created time saving benefits (induced demand). To count both the time saving benefits and the development is to count twice.

It's time savings for people already in these places.
Plus urban development, which has its own benefits.
Why?

Because if you want to put another million people in Sydney or Melbourne or that in itself is going to cost hundreds of billions. New rail lines, new core capacity, schools, hospitals etc. Arguably its more expensive to retrofit this into a built up area where land is expensive.

But if the towns along a HSR route become attractive to live and don't feel like the arse end of the universe, then it could be cheaper to develop these and have less growing pains. If a city goes from 50k to 150k, the city of 150k doesnt need motorways, can have cheap cycleways, doesn't even really need light rail or anything.

So you sink the cost of the HSR line, but in exchange the subsequent cost of development of these towns is cheaper than trying to fit them in the existing capitals.

QuoteAs for trying to discount Mr Higgs opinion, it so happens he was also CEO of Network Rail UK

Rail in the UK is not as good as mainland Europe. Case study of failed privatisation.