High Speed and Fast Rail

[verbatim9]

AFR--- High speed trains not suited for Australia

Bullet trains should not be built to boost the economy after COVID-19 because Australia's population and cities are not big enough to justify the cost, the Grattan Institute says.

"Australia is just not suited to high-speed rail because our cities are too small and too far

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> High-speed rail plans should be abandoned, new report says

Long-held dreams of bullet trains whizzing Australians up and down the east coast are unrealistic and should be abandoned, a new report says.

Analysis by the Grattan Institute found high-speed rail did not stack up for Australia and should be scrapped in favour of restoration projects.

It found Australia's relatively small and dispersed population would mean linking Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne with a bullet train was not viable.

The report also warned against taking on face value the emissions reduction benefits of rail over air travel.

"A bullet train would hinder rather than help efforts to reach net zero emissions by 2050," the report states.

"A rigorous independent cost benefit analysis conducted today would be unlikely to find net benefits to society."

The report says plans for a high speed rail network like those in Japan or France "should be abandoned".

"A bullet train might have captured Australians' imagination, (but) it is not a good use of public money," is states.

The report noted governments from both sides have presented visions of fast trains that "seduce" the public.

Labor leader Anthony Albanese has been a vocal supporter of fast rail to link capital cities.

Speaking at the National Press Club two weeks ago, he said such projects should receive federal government funding.

"We must invest in nation-building infrastructure including iconic projects like High Speed Rail and we should be building trains here," he said.

"Government procurement policy in rail manufacturing has produced superior outcomes to imports, and created regional jobs in Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia."

The report noted Labor had long supported an east coast bullet train and in 2013 commissioned a feasibility study that costed the project at about $10,000 for every taxpayer.

It also found Coalition governments had generally focused on connecting cities to regions via rail, but found the result would be materially the same.

"Faster trains are unlikely to ease pressure on capital cities," the report read.

"They're unlikely to do anything much for most people in the regions either.

"Trains go both ways, and it's much more likely that benefits will flow towards big cities because people and businesses tend to prefer cities."

Fix up the urban and regional fast rail.  High speed rail down the eastern seaboard is unlikely.

[verbatim9]

Couriermail --> High-speed rail plans should be abandoned, new report says

Long-held dreams of bullet trains whizzing Australians up and down the east coast are unrealistic and should be abandoned, a new report says.

Analysis by the Grattan Institute found high-speed rail did not stack up for Australia and should be scrapped in favour of restoration projects.

It found Australia's relatively small and dispersed population would mean linking Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne with a bullet train was not viable.

The report also warned against taking on face value the emissions reduction benefits of rail over air travel.

"A bullet train would hinder rather than help efforts to reach net zero emissions by 2050," the report states.

"A rigorous independent cost benefit analysis conducted today would be unlikely to find net benefits to society."

The report says plans for a high speed rail network like those in Japan or France "should be abandoned".

"A bullet train might have captured Australians' imagination, (but) it is not a good use of public money," is states.

The report noted governments from both sides have presented visions of fast trains that "seduce" the public.

Labor leader Anthony Albanese has been a vocal supporter of fast rail to link capital cities.

Speaking at the National Press Club two weeks ago, he said such projects should receive federal government funding.

"We must invest in nation-building infrastructure including iconic projects like High Speed Rail and we should be building trains here," he said.

"Government procurement policy in rail manufacturing has produced superior outcomes to imports, and created regional jobs in Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia."

The report noted Labor had long supported an east coast bullet train and in 2013 commissioned a feasibility study that costed the project at about $10,000 for every taxpayer.

It also found Coalition governments had generally focused on connecting cities to regions via rail, but found the result would be materially the same.

"Faster trains are unlikely to ease pressure on capital cities," the report read.

"They're unlikely to do anything much for most people in the regions either.

"Trains go both ways, and it's much more likely that benefits will flow towards big cities because people and businesses tend to prefer cities."

Fix up the urban and regional fast rail.  High speed rail down the eastern seaboard is unlikely.

Yes I agree! Faster rail (Trains that run 160-180kph) from Brisbane to Toowoomba, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast will be beneficial.  It would make these places more economical and attractive to live, as well as take pressure off the freeway and road network.

[ozbob]

Grattan Institute --> Fast train fever: Why renovated rail might work but bullet trains won't

Full report --> https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Fast-Train-Fever-Grattan-Institute-Report.pdf PDF

Australia should dump the decades-old dream of building a bullet train from Brisbane to Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra, and we should be wary of expensive promises to upgrade regional rail to ease population pressures on our major capitals and boost struggling regional cities and towns.

The east-coast bullet train advocated by the federal ALP would be an expensive folly: Australia's small population and vast distances make it unviable; it would add to greenhouse gas emissions for decades; and governments could help many more commuters by improving public transport in the booming outer suburbs of the capital cites.

East-coast business travellers would be the biggest winners from a multi-billion-dollar bullet train, but taxpayers from Broome to Perth, Darwin to Adelaide, and Launceston to Hobart would have to stump up an average of $10,000 each to make the dream a reality.

The global story is stark: good bullet trains are expensive, and bad bullet trains are very expensive. It's time we Australians put this idea to bed.

The alternative of renovating rail lines to boost train speeds from capital cities to surrounding regions is less expensive and might be worth doing – but these renovations are unlikely to fulfil all the wishful thinking of their proponents.

The federal and state governments are funding or considering renovations to numerous rail lines, including from Sydney to Newcastle, Sydney to Wollongong, Melbourne to Geelong, Melbourne to Albury/Wodonga, Melbourne to Traralgon, Brisbane to the Sunshine Coast, and Brisbane to the Gold Coast.

But even if such projects stand up to scrutiny, that doesn't mean they would solve all the problems that people imagine they would: very few city residents would move to the regions; regional cities may actually lose out if their residents can get to the capital more quickly; and many regions have more pressing infrastructure needs than faster trains, including better schools, hospitals, and internet and mobile connections.

More commuters would benefit if governments improved public transport in heavily populated outer suburbs of the capital cities, including Fairfield, Penrith, and Richmond in Sydney, Frankston, Pakenham, and Berwick in Melbourne, and Burpengary, Redcliffe, and Beenleigh in Brisbane.

Often there are better ways to achieve the desired community benefits of faster trains. Introducing congestion charges would be the most effective way to ease pressure on the capital cities' busiest roads; relaxing restrictive zoning regulation is the most direct way governments can make housing cheaper; and fixing road bottle-necks and putting on extra bus services would make it easier for people to move around their city.

Australians have always had a romantic attachment to the idea of faster trains. But in light of the COVID crisis, it's never been more important for our politicians to spend our money wisely, rather than pander to unrealistic dreams.

[Gazza]

but taxpayers from Broome to Perth, Darwin to Adelaide, and Launceston to Hobart would have to stump up an average of $10,000 each to make the dream a reality.

Lol and how much is spent supporting taxpayers in Launceston, Hobart, Darwin etc because their economies are not robust enough to fund themselves?

[SurfRail]

The only way Beenleigh is getting faster trains is if the Gold Coast does as well.

These guys are hopeless.  Economists know the price of everything and the value of nothing but we treat them like polymaths whose opinions trump all other expertise.  Pfft.

[verbatim9]

The New Daily---- Emissions may increase with HSR in Australia.

[verbatim9]

I guess it depends what is the major power source coal,  gas, renewables, hydro or pump hydro?

[verbatim9]

^^There shouldn't be a rise in emissions for a Toowoomba electrified fast rail line due to the new renewable electricity generation coming online in the areas inbetween Brisbane and Dalby. This will offset any possible emission increases. Not sure about any proposed fast rail projects in other States though?

[Golliwog]

The article explains that the increased emissions is due to construction related emissions - steel and concrete.

Once it's running it's emissions are indeed lower than air travel - but coaches are lower again.

[verbatim9]

The article explains that the increased emissions is due to construction related emissions - steel and concrete.

Once it's running it's emissions are indeed lower than air travel - but coaches are lower again.

We calculated this using average fuel consumption estimates from 2018 for various types of transport, as well as the average emissions intensity of electricity generated in Australia in 2018

^^I was referring more to this, electricity use based on 2018 data. Though construction does contribute to emissions due to steel and concrete manufacturing as well as earth moving. The Warrego Hwy would need to be upgraded sooner than later if an electrified train service to Toowoomba is not acted upon. Building a 3 lane freeway in each direction from Helidon to Ipswich will too contribute to emissions. Probably even more.

[ozbob]

https://www.ptua.org.au/2020/05/31/australia-must-move-on-from-freeway-fantasy-not-high-speed-rail/

AUSTRALIA MUST 'MOVE ON' FROM FREEWAY FANTASY, NOT HIGH SPEED RAIL

AUSTRALIA MUST 'MOVE ON' FROM FREEWAY FANTASY, NOT HIGH SPEED RAIL
31 MAY 2020 PTUA

In response to the Grattan Institute's calls for Australia to 'move on' from High Speed Rail, the Public Transport Users Association notes the limitations of their analysis, and calls for urban megaroads projects to receive the same level of scrutiny.

Evidence has shown again and again that urban motorways induce more traffic, rather than "busting" it as proponents claim; that they do not stack up financially, in part because they rely on flawed "traffic busting" modelling; and that they are actively hindering our efforts to fight climate change. The North East Link's price tag more than doubled after its benefit-cost ratio was calculated by Infrastructure Victoria, and it has not been re-assessed since; the West Gate Tunnel has completely circumvented this assessment process. And of course the East West Link, which the Victorian Opposition are inexplicably still fighting for, was a total dud at a BCR of 0.5

However these projects never attract the same scrutiny from economists that High Speed Rail projects do, despite the fact that they cumulatively cost a similar amount. As we quite rightly re-assess the merits of big government expenditure in light of COVID-19, these megaroads projects should be first under the microscope.

The report quite rightly notes many problems that any HSR project must overcome. However, it also has a number of large flaws that need to be addressed if we are to have a reasonable public debate about the merits of the project.

Population size and distribution
The report makes comparisons between the current population of Australia's largest cities and international city pairs with HSR. However, this underplays the role that population growth will play – populations in Europe and Japan have grown very slowly since 1960 while Australia's has more than doubled, and that growth is continuing. The Melbourne-Sydney corridor may have a much lower population than the Madrid-Barcelona corridor now, but by 2050 it will be very similar.

The overall trend towards urbanisation that is noted in the report masks considerable variation at the local level. Many rural LGAs are shrinking, or at best keeping their populations steady, but this does not just represent people moving to the capital cities, it also reflects considerable growth in regional centres. While still modest in absolute numbers, in percentage terms regional cities like Ballarat and Geelong are growing as fast or faster than Melbourne. This does not mean that regional centres are a silver bullet for the growing pains of our cities, but it does mean that claims of an inexorable flow towards the capitals are laughable. And despite claims that we have been trying to decentralise for decades, the decentralisation discussion has been long on rhetoric and short on substantive policy and investment for most of this period. The report is correct to assert that HSR would not be a silver bullet and to note other priority measures, such as internet connectivity – but the suggestion that it couldn't form part of a decentralisation plan are more dubious.

The report makes the assertion that "to properly service regional towns, the train would need to stop in the centre of town" and notes that this does not happen in the Phase Two report, singling out the Gold Coast station in Robina as an example. This flies in the face of many international examples where a non-central station can work quite well for regional centres, where it's part of a well-integrated transport network. Regional passengers can simply take the bus or drive to these stations; given that the Gold Coast HSR station was proposed to be adjacent to the existing conventional rail station, they already do. The report itself notes that the Gold Coast-Brisbane corridor is already the largest regional commuter corridor in the nation, despite Robina and all the other stations being inland.

The analysis suggesting Australia is more comparable to the USA than Europe or Japan may have merit on the grounds of population distribution, but it makes the untenable assumption that the USA has no HSR for purely economic reasons, completely ignoring the political environment. There is a well-documented history of vested interests advancing ideological political agendas against rail projects and in favour of road projects, and America's political and funding landscape reflect this. The Californian HSR project mentioned in the report was hamstrung from the beginning due to political interference in the choice of route and staging, and the eventual decision to scale back the project is equally political. Similarly, the Texas Central project has "struggled to acquire land for the project", but this is not due to the merits of the project, it is because vested interests have been doing their utmost to prevent the project from going ahead, leading to extensive legal battles. Clearly these political struggles do not have any bearing on the viability of the project in any objective economic sense.

Decarbonising long-distance travel
The report makes the valid point that a large-scale HSR project like this would be a very expensive and slow way to reduce emissions, compared to other emissions reduction measures in other sectors of the economy. The project would generate emissions during construction, and would take time to "pay back" these emissions through operation – this is a serious problem that environmental advocates for HSR must deal with.

However, it is also true that viable ways to decarbonise our interstate travel are thin on the ground – options like battery electric, biofuel or hydrogen planes may show promise but are currently unproven. Given that we're now in the endgame of the climate crisis and must completely decarbonise all aspects of our economy – not just the cheapest and easiest aspects – analysts must compare apples to apples, and compare HSR against its direct alternatives for decarbonising interstate travel. It may be that one of these alternatives would be quicker and cheaper – but if not, it may be a case of building HSR and taking direct action to offset its construction emissions, such as through reforestation.

The PTUA certainly recognises that, on almost all measures, more modest improvements to public transport – whether within Melbourne or more conventional rail proposals for regional Victoria – are a higher priority, and our campaigning has always reflected this. However, the urgent need to address the climate crisis means that governments must do both – build the intra-city public transport networks we need while seriously addressing long-distance transport as well.

To help ease pressures on the budget, governments should be cancelling white elephant urban megaroads projects like North East Link, the West Gate Tunnel and the Monash Freeway Upgrade. None of these megaroads projects stack up financially, they all induce more traffic rather than "busting" it, and they all increase carbon emissions at a time when we need to be reducing them – if Australia needs to "move on" from a transport fantasy, it's that these urban motorways are a good idea.

[Gazza]

Yeah, its a definite thing in the US that any sort of rail project has opponents that will do their best to distrupt it, because they can't bear the thought of proponents having a "win".
And of course the political climate as a whole tends to favour freeways over roads.

Australia, for all its flaws does at least do decent rail projects on occasion, not as good as Europe, but def better than the US. Something like CRR could never happen in a US city of equivalent size.

[verbatim9]

https://twitter.com/railpage/status/1267651537838280704

[verbatim9]

British #Azuma Train

#WeeArchie seeing his 1st @LNER #Azuma at speed today and he got a wave from the driver,of course he had to bring his dinasour https://t.co/ehX0YWjPJm
https://twitter.com/mrmissm/status/1279063261862940673

[verbatim9]

^^Hopefully Australian kids will be able to wave to a fast electric train with the Fast Rail project being rolled out across the country. #Sydney #Canberra #Newcastle, #Brisbane #Toowoomba #Sunshinecoast #GoldCoast #Coolangatta, #Melbourne #Geelong #Ballarat #Bendigo.

[verbatim9]

The Conversation AU---Don't abandon plans for high-speed rail in Australia – just look at all the benefits

Author
Marcus Luigi Spiller
Associate Professor of Urban Planning (honorary), University of Melbourne

Disclosure statement
Marcus Luigi Spiller is a principal and partner at SGS Economics & Planning Pty Ltd.

The Grattan Institute's call to "abandon" plans for any high-speed rail network in Australia fails to look at the wider benefits such a project can bring by way of more productive economies and more sustainable towns and cities.

The study authors argue the development of any bullet train network linking Brisbane to Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra is "unsuitable for Australia".

But what their argument neglects is that a project like high-speed rail has a unique capacity to reshape cities and population settlement patterns in positive ways.

A question of cost

The institute's study says the idea of high-speed rail is an unwanted distraction in policy-making for the nation's transport future. Its case relies on a review of the high-speed rail experience in Europe, Japan and China.

All of these nations, it says, have vastly different distributions of towns and major cities to that in Australia, which has extremely long distances between a few large cities.

The study also critiques a 2013 Commonwealth analysis that found a A$130 billion high-speed rail project linking Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne would generate a benefit-cost ratio of 2.3 to 1. So every A$1 invested in a high-speed rail network would generate A$2.30 in benefits such as travel time savings, avoided vehicle operating costs and reduced road congestion.

But the Grattan study authors say that figure is based on a "cherry-picked" discount rate of 4%. This is economics jargon for the minimum return that the community would expect from the investment of its collective resources in any project.

The Grattan study also says the 2013 cost-benefit analysis did not allow for cost over-runs. Nor did it consider the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the enormous quantities of concrete and steel needed to build the infrastructure.

So why are some people, including the federal Labor Party, still so enamoured with the idea of high-speed rail when others would have it binned?

Some projects reshape cities

Not all transport infrastructure projects are equal when it comes to cost-benefit analysis. Some investments have a transformative effect on population settlement patterns – they shape cities and regions.

The Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop are classic examples of city-shaping projects. Each altered travel times between different parts of the metropolis, which then shifted the location preferences of households and businesses. This led to a substantially different city structure compared to what might otherwise have developed.

Other projects, the vast majority of government transport outlays, merely follow or service the pattern of settlement established by the city-shaping investments. These "follower" projects include the local arterial roads and tramways that circulate people and goods within cities.

The Commonwealth's official guidelines for major project evaluation recognise this distinction.

New ways of living, learning, working and playing become possible with city-shaping projects. By comparison, the procession of follower projects simply perpetuates settlement patterns and economic structures.

This is the claim and appeal of high-speed rail. Advocates argue such an investment would divert a significant proportion of urban growth from the far-flung suburbs of metropolitan areas to new regional locations. That's because these regions will then have similar travel times into core city labour markets.

In these regional locations, households would enjoy greater housing choice and affordability, more walkability and better access to open space. They could even have better access to a range of community facilities than their metro suburban counterparts.

A key point about high-speed rail is that it could shift growth from sprawling outer metropolitan suburbs to regional locations.

Advocates also argue businesses in the big cities and intervening regional areas will be able to connect with each other at lower cost and source the skills they need more efficiently. This would boost productivity.

Consider all the benefits

The 2013 analysis took into account issues such as congestion, emissions (from travel) and transport accidents. But it did not attempt to quantify and monetise the effects of high-speed rail shaping cities and regions.

Arguably, the most important set of benefits from this investment were left out of the economic evaluation, simply because they are difficult to measure.

Modelling how the supply chains of businesses might change under the influence of city-shaping projects, or how the housing preferences of people might shift, is undoubtedly challenging. But being difficult to measure makes these impacts no less real.

Despite this limitation on the scope of benefits, the 2013 study said the high-speed rail project would return a benefit-cost ratio of 1.1 at a 7% discount rate, which the Grattan study says is the usual test applied to transport projects.

Grattan says the project barely scrapes in at this higher discount rate and implies many other projects would offer ratios greater than 1:1 and should be preferred. These would typically be smaller, follower projects that address local congestion problems.

But a project achieving a 1.1 benefit-cost ratio means Australia would still be better off undertaking the project compared to a business-as-usual case.

If the transformative effects of high-speed rail include more compact and walkable cities with less car dependency and greater productivity, then such a network has good reason to keep its grip on the Australian imagination.

In the midst of a pandemic like COVID-19 clean information is vital. We only work with recognised experts – epidemiologists, immunologists, mathematicians, policy experts and others – to bring you information that is fact-based, accurate, and 100% independent. If you are able to support this important work, please give a monthly donation.

[verbatim9]

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Ogilvie_CJ/status/1330640786711588865

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1411588355062648834

[verbatim9]

https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5489.msg248899.msg#248899

Australia could also build fast rail between Sydney and Canberra as well. Even though it's that tiny bit longer in distance.

[AnonymouslyBad]

^ Did you mean Sydney to Melbourne? Yeah, similar population mix and very similar distance as the crow flies as well. Just goes to show we can do it

[achiruel]

^ Did you mean Sydney to Melbourne? Yeah, similar population mix and very similar distance as the crow flies as well. Just goes to show we can do it

Where do we get the indentured labourers from though?

It's not exactly high-speed as we usually understand it though, more like higher-speed, with a maximum of 160 km/h. So, no faster in top service speed than QR ETT, but probably a better alignment with more than a hundred bridges and dozens of tunnels. We can't even seem to get one right here!

[verbatim9]

Hopefully we will get this from Sydney to Canberra (200 kph standard gauge)  and from Brisbane to Toowoomba (160 kph narrow gauge with existing NGRS or next generation NGRS)

[SteelPan]

Use to be a very car-centric part of the world....

It takes time, some false starts....BUT...if you hang in there long enough.....

[ozbob]

Europe high speed rail intense edition

[ozbob]

It is a bit murky out there ...

High speed rail = dedicated ROW, running at 250km/h plus

Fast rail = running up to 160-200km/h  can use dedicated ROW but often upgraded existing railways.
Victoria, NSW and Queensland have a fast rail capability developing.

Very fast train = older term that really means high speed rail

Faster rail - A government construct to hide the fact they are doing neither true high speed nor fast rail.
National Faster Rail Agency https://www.nfra.gov.au

[verbatim9]

Yes Fast rail by 2030 to Toowoomba, Gold and Sunshine Coast.

It can be done now leading to substantial benefits to the community.

[Fares_Fair]

Yes Fast rail by 2030 to Toowoomba, Gold and Sunshine Coast.

It can be done now leading to substantial benefits to the community.

[achiruel]

Yes Fast rail by 2030 to Toowoomba, Gold and Sunshine Coast.

It can be done now leading to substantial benefits to the community.

You're dreaming. There wouldn't even be enough construction workers available to complete it. They're struggling with GCLR S3 right now!

[kram0]

From the website Bob posted. Clearly they are not in a hurry with 'pre construction' to be completed by 2023. I cannot see work commencing until FY2025/2026. Hopefully the same year you have construction activity for the rail line to Caloundra/Maroochydore.

https://www.nfra.gov.au/projects

Logan and the Gold Coast Faster Rail – (formerly called Kuraby to Beenleigh)
The project will undertake pre-construction activities to upgrade the 19 kilometre section of existing rail track from Kuraby to Beenleigh. The project will finalise the scope, cost, timing and procurement for the project and undertake community consultation. The estimated cost of the project is $356.2 million. The Australian Government has committed $178.1 million, with the remaining costs to be met by the Queensland Government. The pre-construction activity is expected to be completed in 2023.

[#Metro]

By chance I am comparing options between different modes from Melbourne to Sydney. The road distance is about 880 km.

The Car Option takes about 9 hours.

The Flying Option takes about 1.5 hours and costs around $160 (at least in normal non-COVID19 times)

The Rail Option takes about 11.5 hours and costs around $120

What changes would need to happen to make people choose the rail option? There is a big time gap between what the plane does and what the car does. Rail could fit in the middle of that gap. Clearly different modes are operating in different markets and there is an opportunity for all three to stake out different parts of the travel market.

Flying is the fastest but also omits all intermediate stops. Rail is the slowest but it goes to more destinations (e.g. Albury and Wagga-Wagga) and is, therefore, more accessible to passengers.

If we assume that people will take trains even if it is slower than the plane, but is faster than a car, what average speed would the train have to run to complete the journey in say six hours (same day service?).

880 km divided by 6 hours = 146 km/hour. Round this up to 150 km/hour. That's pretty modest!

At the moment trains are travelling this journey at an average speed of 880 km divided by 11.5 hours = 76 km/hour which is actually quite shocking and slower than most highways. SLOWER THAN CAR.

It would be interesting to see how costs evolve if rather than build HSR (250 km/hr) something around 180-200 km/hr was built that kept average speeds at least 150 km/hr (as the train will not be running max speed all the time).

This could shave billions off the construction cost, and fill a niche space between what planes do and what cars do.

[#Metro]

Sydney-Brisbane Corridor

The distance between Sydney and Brisbane is similar (908 km):

Car does the trip in 9 hrs 40 min. (about 95 km/hr average speed)

Plane does the trip in 1.5 hours (about 605 km/hr average speed)

Train does the trip in 14.5 hours (about 62 km/hr average speed)

Again, if we brought the train to within a six-hour window, the average speed required would be:

908 km divided by 6 hours = 151 km/hour average speed.

Again, if we aimed for a top speed of around 180 km/hr - 200 km/hr with faster rail that would be faster than car and avoid the expensive cost of HSR.

It would be same-day service Sydney-Brisbane and also Sydney-Melbourne. That's something that could work.

[#Metro]

Sydney-Canberra Corridor

The Sydney-Canberra Corridor is the one with the highest potential IMO as the journey times between car and rail are not too far off from each other.

The road route (via Campbell town, not Woollongong) takes 3 h 9 min for 293 km. That's about 95 km/hr average speed.

Train is not too far behind, doing the trip in 4h 15 min. That's an average speed of 69 km/hr.

If we wanted a train to do that trip in say half the time to be competitive with road, it would ideally take around 90 minutes.

That gives an average speed of about 293/1.5 hours = 195 km/hour.

This is a bit faster than the averages for Sydney-Brisbane and Sydney-Melbourne.

But even running at a slower 150 km/hr average speed would give a 2 hour journey time, beating the car by an hour.

Again, speeds of around 250 km/hr are simply not required to get into that competitive space between what planes do and what trains could do (with an upgrade).

Is HSR even required?? Running trains at 180-200 km/hr might be sufficient.

[ozbob]

Fast rail ( 160 - 200 km/h ) is probably the best chance and choice.  High speed rail, the costs go up exponentially.

Fast rail can use existing corridors etc. to access capital cities etc.  Also some intermediate stops are properly feasible.

Fast rail can be progressively developed in stages and be very functional.

Federal Labor has finally got it, in the sense that their real rail priority is now fast rail (Sydney - Newcastle fast rail for example).

It is looking like Labor may get elected federally, if so, there might be some bonus rail dollars for Queensland, down the track so to speak.

[achiruel]

The main benefit of fast rail IMO is not intercapital trips but trips from nearby regional areas to capital cities.

e.g. Brisbane to Gold Coast, Sydney to Newcastle/Wollongong/Canberra.

If we're talking about overall intercapital routes, Brisbane-Sydney actually has far more potential than Sydney-Melbourne, as there's a lot more people living between Brisbane and Sydney than between Sydney and Melbourne, and it's difficult to compete with flying between capitals on a time and cost basis.

[Gazza]

Yes I agree.
Each city needs to have an RRL project to allow regional trains high speed access to the city.
These projects will be the expensive ones but at least it means the benefit can be split between regional trains and long-distance HSR.
So you could have say 4tph allocated to long distance services and then say 8tph for regional.

That would be a more economical way of providing the needed infrastructure.

[#Metro]

I think we need a Google Map.

It would be great if the fast rail (Not HSR) service could exit Brisbane via the Gold Coast line. That way you could get GC-SYD pax on the train. Given that the alignment will already be steam-ironed, this is good!

I'm interested in approaching Sydney via a coastal route that passes near Byron Bay, Ballina etc. There locations do have airports but most people wouldn't fly to these destinations. The line could then plug into Newcastle.

Entering Sydney raises questions. The network is already congested in the central area, it might be better to do a Western Sydney terminus as that will allow easy though routing via the Western Sydney lines which form a complete and existing rail bypass of the inner Sydney area.

Another question will be how to exit Sydney. Going via Wollongong would get passengers but the terrain is tough. Might be better to exit via Campbelltown?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Either way any project is going to cost a fortune and there isn't really any incentive for them ie state governments to do so. HSR is popular with the feds as artc would be the track manager but rollingstock and mtce/stabling would be a state operator cost. As I understand artc access costs would also be cheaper for the states. Many lines across australia can be upgraded to 160-200kph running by simply replacing the sleepers, rail, signalling and bridges ie timber bridges (take the Westlander. It's mostly straight track - not including the range - but the infrastructure only allows it to run at 80kph but without the rollingstock and frequency of services there's no point to upgrade the infrastructure until the timber bridges meet their end of life which has been happening a lot over the years). The tilttrains were looked at running faster speeds but infrastructure upgrades to signalling and fencing to prevent animal strikes (they just destroy the cab faces at speed) made it quite expensive and that was before road crossings/detours were considered. And when road mods were added to that cost they could get the same/greater time savings by realigning the corridor elsewhere.

If freight/mineral trains are involved expect the costs to greatly increase to avoid conflicts. Take the two arvo tilt services. The diesel is nearly 30 mins slower than electric and that's because the diesel follows on restricted  signals pretty much all the way to Maryborough (same track speed to Caboolture - ICE used to operate at different speeds north of Northgate in a few sections but changed when traffic increased) and even then it still gets caught behind the Caboolture service but just hunts down any other passenger or freight service further north Eg freights are doing 95kph max on the same track as passenger trains that are doing 140kph with slowing down stopping for stations as the tilts easily coasting along at 160kph with no stopping/slowing). The passenger trains and north/south freight trains also work in rough 30 minute time windows on the aurizon ncl network around Gladstone/Rocky because of the coal train lengths/speeds/junction times/signal spacing distances. The XPT and explorers have same problems aswell.

As good as it would be to have all these fast lines and frequencies  popping up I don't really see any real moves to help enable it without a large investment from state and federal parties and scaling back on road upgrades on the same route which is the sad reality of it. If you just look across Queensland there are plenty of lines, places and cities where you can apply Garza's method but there's always someone saying a bus is cheaper or a Bruce Highway needs a upgrade bypass (which is happening between cairns-Townsville at the moment). NSW is no different with the pacific highway constantly getting upgrades and scaling back of their railways. Newcastle recently removed its cbd train station just as Townsville removed its cbd train station nearly 20 years ago.

[Gazza]

I don't think you would have Sydney HSR services using the GC line. Infill stations are going in, and it will soon operate at 5 min frequency post CRR.
So even on the fast section south of Beenleigh, its still going to take 40 mins to transit the Gold Coast sector, and it would be a joke to burn that amount of time.
It's really going to have to have its own track pair through that stretch.
However Beenleigh to the CBD is up for grabs....You could have a DG line with all services running non stop Beenleigh to the CBD, and there would be no degradation of capacity or running time really.

Fwiw, the only place you would build SG HSR would be on the BNE SYD MEL corridor.
Don't see why ARTC needs to be the track owner, could well be another owner for those lines.
Presumably freight sticks to the current lines or Inland rail.