High Speed and Fast Rail

[#Metro]

I think faster rail (160-200 km/hr; NOT HSR) is possible but I wouldn't let states run it. They are too concerned with their boundaries they would squabble about who's paying how much etc. Train frequency would likely be better too.

Have a small admin division in Canberra contract that out to an operator like DB or Keolis. The Green and Gold team (Barnaby et al.) would probably support it too.

The Commonwealth has powers to be responsible for interstate railways under Part V of The Constitution. Syd-Canberra would probably be the first one to tackle as the rail station would need to shift to a North or Northeast location.

[Gazza]

For me it's like, why half arse it, you might as well not build it at all.

If it's only doing 160/200kmh between capital cities, its still going to be tens of billions, but not really fast enough compared to driving and therefore wont get enough passengers.
Of course, speeds of 160kmh would be fine for a more local service, say Syd to Newcastle or Syd to Canberra.
We've seen the success of this in Vic.

Trying to run those speeds over longer distances gets you a Tilt Train style service that is only used by regional folk.


But if you adopt a 350kmh standard as much as possible then the line will be able to do EVERYTHING well, which is how HSL Zuid seems to function.

[#Metro]

If it's only doing 160/200kmh between capital cities, its still going to be tens of billions, but not really fast enough compared to driving and therefore wont get enough passengers.

Well if you take that position, you'll dump HSR in favour of a Maglev like China running at 600 km/hr with extensive tunneling. I don't think that works, given that the plane would still win on fare cost grounds.

It doesn't need to compete with planes. It does need to be faster than car. Rail can fill that space in the middle because that's where the contestable market is. Not everyone wants the Ferrari option.

There isn't much point spending $50 billion ++ going up against a plane that is doing 600-800 km/hr , taking off every 30 min and charging $120.

And as for faux capacity issues on the busy MEL-SYD-BNE air corridor, Brisbane just opened a second runway, Melbourne has two airports and Sydney is about to open a second one.

What exactly is the value proposition of HSR? You are paying a lot more ($50 bn) to get less (slower than plane). With Faster Rail (MSR?) you cut the costs.

How fast is the tilt train? I think that didn't get faster than 100 km/hr.

[timh]

How fast is the tilt train? I think that didn't get faster than 100 km/hr.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt_Train



Sent from my SM-G780F using Tapatalk

[#Metro]

The in service speed was more like 80-90 km/hr for the majority of the journey when I was on it. I don't recall it ever reaching top speed.

[Gazza]

I think maglev is a bit of a distraction.
I will wait and see how the chuo maglev goes before getting enthusiastic about it, especially since it is a huge step increasing cost, and only a couple of companies make it.

conventional steel on steel hsr can beat  the car AND beat airlines, what position is pay more get more.
You pay extra to go from 200kmh to 300kmh but you get extra passengers.
However, stepping up to maglev might LOSE passengers because you wouldn't be able to have lower tier services utilising the infrastructure
(Recall that the chuo maglev is only being built because the tokaido Shinkansen is at saturation)

Conventional wisdom is that 3h journey times equal air travel, because while the flight from Sydney to Brisbane or Sydney to Melbourne is timetable to take 90 minutes, you would chew up another 90 minutes on airport access times and boarding and security procedures

[#Metro]

How is it pay more get more? Not all passengers are worth capturing.

And it's slower than plane.

Airport access times isn't credible, and certainly not worth the extra billions plus ongoing mtce IMHO. when I was in Barcelona they had Airport style screening before they allowed you on the train. In any case, that is an argument for better airport screening rather than HSR. Or HSR only to the Airport, and no further.

Plenty of security incidents happen on trains.
2004 Madrid incident, 2005 London incident etc. Why would a train be immune from that?

This money would be better spent on rail though Centenary! 🙂

[Gazza]

The train bombings in Spain and the UK were on commuter trains but don't have security checkpoints so they aren't relevant to this discussion and you shouldn't have brought them up

[#Metro]

The train bombings in Spain and the UK were on commuter trains but don't have security checkpoints so they aren't relevant to this discussion and you shouldn't have brought them up

This is a forum, and of course I can and should bring it up. What is preventing someone doing that on a HSR? Nothing??

[Gazza]

You can bring it up that's your choice but it's bad taste.

By and large trains don't have security checkpoints.
Shinkansen didn't, HSL Zuid didn't, ICE didn't.
AVE may have because they were still nervous given what they suffered.
Curiosity, the Mumbai metro had metal detectors but syd metro didn't

I I think the decision to implement security is more a country level decision, not related to the speed of the train

[#Metro]

By and large trains don't have security checkpoints.
Shinkansen didn't, HSL Zuid didn't, ICE didn't.
AVE may have because they were still nervous given what they suffered.
Curiosity, the Mumbai metro had metal detectors.

I just look at the Eurostar website: https://help.eurostar.com/faq/be-en/question/What-security-checks-are-there-at-the-station

What security checks are there at the station?

Just like an airline, Eurostar works with European authorities to ensure a high level of security on each journey. It might mean an extra step at the station but since safety's our top priority, we take our security checks seriously.

How much time should I allow for security?
For most journeys – but not all – you should get to the station 45-60 minutes before departure. This'll give you enough time to scan your ticket, then go through security and passport control.

Passport controls, OK. But they do check you and your luggage.

Getting to the station 30 minutes or so beforehand is something most people do before a long journey anyway. That's just good practice so you don't miss your train and probably won't change much with HSR. The majority of benefits aren't coming from reduced check-in time anyway, and if they were I would be very concerned about the true viability of it.

[Gazza]

Yeah I think Eurostar is more stringent because UK was never in the Schengen zone, and not even in the EU now.

[JimmyP]

Eurostar is a different beast as it is a true international service, as Gazza pointed out.
Having travelled a lot on the TGV, Thalys and ICE around Europe, as well as the Shinkansen in Japan, I certainly didn't turn up at the station 30+ minutes before departure unless it was to look at the station and the trains themselves. 5-10mins is more than enough.

The benefits of HSR between the capitals are multiple:
1) Competitive with air between capitals as long as times are less than 3hrs on the train (airport transfer times, security, check in etc most certainly do count to air travel times);
2) Allows fast and efficient regional to city travel and v.v.
3) Generally considered as more environmentally friendly than air travel
4) Often more convenient than air travel, where stations are generally in the city with good connections to the public transport network of that city;
5) Uninterrupted work time on the journey for business travellers, easy access to dining on board etc.

There's also the chance that one of the major airlines could contribute towards operational costs and have code sharing on tickets, thereby reducing the need for high frequency flights in peaks (resulting in lower airport congestion, lower capex costs for airlines purchasing aircraft mainly for extra peak flying, less aircraft downtime, better access to regional centers for their frequent flyer members etc). Air France/KLM do exactly that on the Thalys between Amsterdam and Paris.

It's certainly not something that can or will be built overnight, but if we're going to build things like Newcastle - Sydney - Canberra etc., build them to a high enough standard to be used for an evetual HSR network when the fill in sections are built.

Oh, and before someone comes along saying if there's stations along the way, the 3hr journey time won't happen. That's what express trains are for. Tiered services are key. For instance:
- :00, :30 Express Capital to Capital
- :10, :40 Limited Stops
- :20, :50 All stops
Stations are on loop/siding tracks where express trains can overtake. This is definitely not an unusual operating procedure.

[#Metro]

None of this is worth spending $50-100 billion on in the Australian context of HSR.
People can already fly between capitals non-stop and it's profitable.

[Gazza]

Also, worth pointing out that there are the Southeastern High Speed "Javelin" trains running on HS1 in the UK, and these do not have security checks, so hopefully that settles that debate.

**********************

The literal translation of Shinkansen is "New Trunk Line", and this is what an east coast HSR could do.
There's no doubt that the current line up the east coast is a relic from the past, and not really good for much other than freight, have a look at all the bends and spirals on it:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wyaralong+QLD+4310/@-28.3534214,152.9611062,3515m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x6b96d337635b4ed9:0x400eef17f20e2c0!8m2!3d-27.9312895!4d152.8055334

https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.5564401,151.2045378,2008m/data=!3m1!1e3

I believe an east coast HSR could address the following needs, which together would create a well used piece of Infrastructure.

Better access to Sydney from Newcastle, the Central Coast and the Hunter
So, there's 700,000 people living here, and the train from Newcastle to Sydney takes 2h50 mins, and those cities are 120km apart. A joke by any measure.
A new line through here would save hours, and would unlock the economic potential of the area, and finally treat Newcastle with the dignity it deserves.

Increase Capacity between Hornsby and Sydney
Multiple tiers of service share track, which is inefficient and reduces capacity. A new track pair would relieve long distance services from those lines and allow suburban frequency to increase, and long distance travel times to reduce.

Faster Access to Canberra and the Southern Highlands
Currently the Southern Highlands line runs as a shuttle, with passengers transferring at Macarthur to a Suburban train, which takes about an hour to finally reach the CBD. Moss vale to the CBD is only 106km as the crow flies but the trip takes 2h40 mins. Pathetic.

Canberra takes 4h via train to Sydney, or a 3h drive, a distance of 290km.
HSR could slash the journey time to Canberra to under 1h15 mins, which would be revolutionary.
The flying time is 50 mins by the way, but this is hugely inefficient and low capacity, and the train would be faster than this of course since there would be more than 25 mins spent at the airports.

Faster Access to Woolongong (Via the Dombarton Rail link)
The Dombarton Rail link could be utilised for passenger services as well, so trains from Woolongong would be able to loop around and enter Sydney via Campbelltown at high speed.
For those unaware, the earthworks were done but no tracks were ever laid after the project was halted in the 80s.
You can see it here:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dombarton+NSW+2530/@-34.2706375,150.6830639,1070m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x6b13100438591199:0x5017d68163344f0!8m2!3d-34.4567944!4d150.7721464

By my estimation, the route from Woolongong to Central via Dombarton and the new HSL would be around 100km , reducing the current 1h40 min journey to under an hour.

Faster services to North Eastern Victoria

Currently its a 3.5h drive from Albury/Wodonga to Melbourne, or 3h20 min on the fastest XPT trains (Though typically 4h on V line)
Its likely the V line services will become faster as more Vlocity trains are introduced.

The NE line in Vic is actually the easiest part of the network to build IMO, as its already quite straight. Where curves exist they would be easy to make into 4500 radius curves.  The main realignment would be around 25km around Broadford, 20km around Glenrowan, and another 25km around Chiltern.
Also, another great thing is that the line north from Albury to Wagga is pretty straight as well, so it would be easy to incorporate that into the system.


More Capacity on the northern Entry to Melbourne
Again, the Craigeburn line shares track with long distance trains. The north of Melbourne and Wallan is growing, so segregating longer distance services from suburban and freight would be of great benefit.

True Fast Rail for the GC
In the long term, the GC would benefit from a step increase in speed. Whilst I believe it would be possible to get the journey to Coolangatta to around 1 hour (As per RBoTs submission on logan/gc faster rail, it probably cant do too much faster, because of the number of stations on the GC.
A Future HSR project could have a very select number of stations, Say just Coomera, Helensvale and Robina, plus a southern Brisbane station.
Intercapital services would only stop at one of these, the rest would be on passing loops.
So it would finally be possible to get from Brisbane to say Helensvale in 30 mins flat.

Melbourne to Sydney

So if we give Canberra a new HSR service, and do some TLC on the NE line in Victoria and to Wagga Wagga, then we have already built 2/3 of it.
You can then justify filling the 180km gap with the section from Wagga Wagga to Canberra junction, and unlock the MEL-CBR and MEL-SYD markets

Newcastle to Gold Coast
Whilst this is a longer gap, it has more on the way. Both Coffs and Ballina are popular tourist destinations with airports, and the comfortable climate and coastline makes these good candidates for getting australians to consider living outside a city. The corridor already benefits from a good motorway too, so its a really strong basis for growth.
Of course, building this segment also unlocks the OOL-SYD and BNE-SYD sectors.

The north coast line is windy, and there is really no way to get travel times down to an acceptable level, so a HSR line would dramatically improve regional rail.

Induced Regional Demand
If a trip is faster and easier, people do it more often.
The world feels a lot smaller finally.
If new lines are blitzing driving times and current rail times, people will make those journeys more often, which helps the economy and toursim and social connectivty.

Regional Development in General
First things first. Forget the idea that people would live 300km from work and be there in an hour each day. Too expensive and wasteful.
Thats not the aim.
(However, with our new found remote working arrangements for some people, you could pop into the office one day a week like that.)

The real value of regional development comes from being able to live and work in a regional area, but still have access to the life of the city on demand.
Having grown up in regional vic, it can feel very isolating and boring. They do make some effort to improve facilities in regional towns, but lets be honest, the stuff on offer in capital cities is often better and more dynamic, so you still want to go there on occasion.

If you live somewhere like Wagga Wagga, it really is a draining drive, or a long XPT trip to reach a capital, and that makes some people reluctant to move there.
However, if its got a HSR train coming every hour, and you can be at a capital city in under 2h, you can have your cake and eat it too.
Not every city can have this leg up, but certainly we can pick winners.
I believe that Albury, Wagga Wagga, Goulburn, Port Macquarie and Coffs could all grow into the hundreds of thousands of residents, and fill the gap between the capitals.

So that sums it up, an east coast HSR is actually improving 11 different things at once.

None of this is worth spending $50-100 billion on in the Australian context of HSR.

You said that the Centenary rail bypass would be $2b and benefit 30,000 residents in the catchment.

So $1b per 15,000 residents.

Middle range estimate of east coast HSR would be $75b, with a catchment of around 15,500,000 residents.

So $1b per 207,000 residents.

So each dollar spent benefits more people.

*************************************************

The logic of doing 300kmh plus standard track in stages

-Once upon a time, someone thought it would be a really cool way to save money to build narrow gauge in Qld with lots of turns all the way up the coast.
We are still suffering the consequences of those decisions.

Building to 300kmh standard is the only truly future proof option

Secondly, we could take two approaches.

option a-Spread the money thinly, making the whole line from Melbourne to Sydney 160-200 standard. Yeah cool, but thats what we are stuck with forever now.

option b-Spend the same money building 300km/h standard sections at the ends nearest the cities, and leave the middle part alone.

In the end, this would cost the same amount, and would achieve the same travel time initially...Trains would be fast at the ends closest the cities but crawl at current speeds though the middle part. But the kicker is the bits closest to the cities capture the medium distance market, so in the end more people benefit from higher speeds sooner.

However, the eventual benefit is that if someone decides to go back and upgrade the middle part, then at least they already have good sections at either end to work with.

[#Metro]

I believe an east coast HSR could address the following needs, which together would create a well-used piece of Infrastructure.

Fast rail service (Not HSR) would have similar benefits and catchment, and not be priced out of all reasonable existence.

Middle range estimate of east coast HSR would be $75b, with a catchment of around 15,500,000 residents.

So $1b per 207,000 residents.

So each dollar spent benefits more people.

Apples vs Pineapples. The intensity of the benefit has not been taken into account.
Centenary residents would use that for daily commuting. The trip generation rate is much lower for regional leisure and business travel as these trips are occasional (vs daily workers commuting to work).

This sort of dialogue reminds me a lot of:

I reckon they should build the Canberra-Sydney link as HSR as a test.

Once the cost explodes (as it surely will, viz. HS2 UK going $1.5 billion over budget), it will kill off all the other HSR proposals and be replaced with sensible, affordable, Faster Rail proposals.

Faster Rail proposals have legs; with HSR the engineering is mind-blowingly expensive the faster and higher the speed is.

[timh]

Once the cost explodes (as it surely will, viz. HS2 UK going $1.5 billion over budget), it will kill off all the other proposals and be replaced with sensible, affordable, Faster Rail proposals.

Faster Rail proposals have legs; with HSR the engineering is mind-blowingly expensive the faster and higher the speed is.

You do realise this has basically already happened? There have been numerous HSR studies in Australia, with the latest big one in 2013. Cost from BNE-MEL was put at approx. $113bn. Hence why HSR proposals have largely been dropped in favour of Regional Fast Rail.

[ozbob]

HSR (has been known as Very Fast Trains previously in Oz) is not going to happen.

Australian Very Fast Trains-A Chronology  1998
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/Background_Papers/bp9798/98bp16

It is just endless studies ...

What might happen is fast rail Sydney - Newcastle, Sydney - Canberra.

Victoria is on the way to fast rail.

Fast rail in Queensland is moribund.  Olympics you say?   
Fuk, we cannot even manage to do some level crossing removals in SEQ.  We don't have enough trains, and the network is failing.

#Carryon

[#Metro]

The Grattan Institute is a non-partisan evidence-first well-respected think tank.

They have done an extensive analysis on HSR and the 2013 report. I would suggest that it is mandatory reading if anyone wishes to form an informed opinion on HSR viability in Australia.

Fast train fever. Grattan Institute.
https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Fast-Train-Fever-Grattan-Institute-Report.pdf

(and on Page 37, Grattan mentions improving PT to Centenary in Brisbane!)

In the real world, it would take a tax hike of about $10,000 for every personal taxpayer in Australia to fund the bullet train. Because the 2013 feasibility study omitted this, it's not surprising that it was able to find that travellers would enjoy significant benefits over and above what they'd actually paid for through their train fare

[techblitz]

If money is the issue with HSR then we need to look to innovative financing models.....based on future earnings of the anticipated turbo-charged population growth.
If we can get some of those investors that are currently plonking down 500k to 1 mill usd on a virtual plot of land in a video game......heck...surely we can entice them to invest it in a real-life rail track / rail station / new decentralised city lol...

[Gazza]

So we didnt have a $10,000 tax hike for the NBN or Jobkeeper, and heck even the Pacific Motorway project was $15b over 24 years (With $4.9b of that going towards the 180km Ballina Woolgoolga segment)
So we can spend the big bucks when we want to.


Personally, I think $100b price tags are just trying to scare people off the project:


The other day the Feds were saying free RATs would be impossible because it would cost $13b per year. Its a common strategy to dramatically inflate costs when someone has already decided they dont want to do something.
I saw similar tactics used by opponents to gold coast light rail.

I mean seriously, Inland Rail is $9.9b for Melbourne to Brisbane.
And of course HSR costs more than a freight line, but its not 10x the cost.

As far as im concerned, Australia is at the point where $10-15b projects are common place, and this would roughly correlate with certain stages of the HSR system.

I've read the Grattan report, but there are a few things they got wrong, will be another post for another time.

As for the UK. They are terrible project managers and cost controllers. The Great Western electrification was cut short due to rising costs. Lets not forget that Crossrail was due to open in 2018 and is still not open.

Look to the French
LGV Bretagne-Pays de la Loire was 184km for 3.4b EUR in 2017 ..$18.5m per km

Australian Very Fast Trains-A Chronology  1998
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/Background_Papers/bp9798/98bp16

It is just endless studies ...

Lets be honest, the reason we dont have HSR is because we have had somewhat of a one party federal government that don't give a sh%t about passenger rail.
Coincidentally, we did have a government that did seem to care about it, and thats when projects started getting funding (RRL, MBRL ) and the feds actually took a modern look at the proposal then it was soon snuffed out when we got Abbot who thought we should 'stick to our knitting' and fund roads.

I dont think there is any technical or even financial reason Australia couldnt take the leap, we just lack the champions in government.
When you do get a minister enthusiastic about it, eg WA or Vic right now, progress is very quick.

[#Metro]

So we didnt have a $10,000 tax hike for the NBN or Jobkeeper, and heck even the Pacific Motorway project was $15b over 24 years (With $4.9b of that going towards the 180km Ballina Woolgoolga segment)
So we can spend the big bucks when we want to.

Borrowing means that in the future, repayments and debt servicing will be competing and diverting money from national expenditures on everything else.

A lot of people cannot see the logic of constructing a duplicate transport system at immense cost when the existing system is not broken.

There is already a fast, efficient, and profitable way to get between the three capitals. Air.

As for regional travel - Fast rail trains up to around 200 km/hr can do that job.

There are so many other competing worthwhile projects where that $100 billion could be better spent.

Many members on RBOT support regional rapid rail and fast rail on the merit principle. That is fine - and Victoria has done well with that.

Happy to hear what the objections to Grattan's analysis are, but I think it is fair to say HSR is vote bait.

[Gazza]

A lot of people cannot see the logic of constructing a duplicate transport system at immense cost when the existing system is not broken.

Yes it is broken, I gave numerous examples, particularly around the Sydney basin where 120km journeys are taking almost 3h.


Also, why do people keep saying air travel is profitable. Virgin, Tiger, Impulse, Ansett, OzJet all collapsed in my lifetime lmao.
For some reason Qantas keeps getting tax breaks from NSW by threatening to move their headquarters.

There are so many other competing worthwhile projects where that $100 billion could be better spent.

One thing though is that projects in capital cities are always going to stack up more than regional projects, so there does need to be some deliberate decisions to give regional areas something better. Or else you end up like Sydney where you have something like $40b earmarked for urban metros (Which are great projects dont get me wrong) and fairly minimal expenditure for anyone elswhere in the state, save for that short tram in Newcastle.

[Gazza]

Also, just wanted to say that its technicaly faster to fly between Tokyo and Osaka than the Shinkansen, but the Shinkansen has 80% market share.
Flight is 1h20, Shinkansen 2h30.
I would expect similar here. When door to door travel times are considered (Not just in vehicle times) HSR wins out.

The shinkasen allows you to board any service in the non reserved cars if you wish, allowing you to treat it like Turn up and Go, which airlines will never offer.

HSR offers better connections to other modes.

For example, HSR from Roma St would connect with all QR lines, plus most BUZ routes from all directions.
Same can be said for Southern Cross or Sydney Terminal.
The station itself in in walking distance of many businesses, hotels, cultural facilities.

On the other hand, airports are typically on the fringe of a city, and have a single rail line usually and a couple of bus routes.

[#Metro]

Also, why do people keep saying air travel is profitable. Virgin, Tiger, Impulse, Ansett, OzJet all collapsed in my lifetime lmao.
For some reason Qantas keeps getting tax breaks from NSW by threatening to move their headquarters.

You want to add a bankrupt train to that list? Why?

As before:

There is already a fast, efficient, and profitable way to get between the three capitals. Air.

As for regional travel - Fast rail trains up to around 200 km/hr can do that job.

The risk associated with this project is absolutely extreme for the benefit it will produce (1).

There is no obvious strategy of why we need HSR - Faster Rail can improve regional transport as well, and is a good alternative to HSR.

It also replicates existing air corridors that are not broken and just had their capacity increased (point to point MEL-SYD-BNE).

Footnote
(1) For an idea of the risks associated with HSR construction, see the California HSR which is producing massive cost overruns. Initially priced at around $33 billion current cost estimates are $100 billion and the project is delayed.

[Gazza]

Add USA to the list of countries that cant get stuff open.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Side_Access
The project's estimated construction cost has risen nearly threefold from the planned $3.5 billion to $11.1 billion as of April 2018, making it one of the world's most expensive underground rail-construction projects.


https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/11/18/in-latest-bart-delay-bay-area-showcases-its-poor.html

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority has no target date yet for when it will finish its testing on the BART extension into Santa Clara County beyond a statement today that "we still see that on the near horizon" although it won't happen this year.

Thats one thing I thought was funny in the Grattan report. "The USA doesnt have HSR so why should Australia"
Hmmmm possibly due to the fact that the US is a country in decline and despises spending money on public infrastructure, health, cheap unis. Of course they wouldn't build this.


Australia has demonstrated that we can do rail projects cost effectively.
Perth has built 8km of rail tunnel for $2b.
Most of QRs extension projects done with Trackstar were under budget.
Melbourne is absolutely smashing out level crossing removals.

Like what even is the argument? Australia shouldnt build infrastructure because Americans are hopeless at it and the UK has an absurd amount of box ticking.

You want to add a bankrupt train to that list? Why?

Because the infrastructure would also used by subsidised regional and commuter trains so it cant go 'bankrupt'.

[AnonymouslyBad]

Also, just wanted to say that its technicaly faster to fly between Tokyo and Osaka than the Shinkansen, but the Shinkansen has 80% market share.
Flight is 1h20, Shinkansen 2h30.
I would expect similar here. When door to door travel times are considered (Not just in vehicle times) HSR wins out.

Yes, there's certainly more to consider than raw travel time. Flying appears the only realistic choice only because it's become so ingrained that most people can't really imagine the alternative. It's the same reason your average Australian thinks public transport in general can never "win" over driving. (we may be a bit more enlightened on this forum )

There's no question that, given the realities of government funding and priorities, there's about 50 other projects that are more important than even looking at HSR. So HSR is not really a battle worth having. But that suggests the funding and priorities are still stuck in the past, not that HSR is inherently a bad idea!

There's also no question that HSR would be incredibly expensive. Yes, the cost would obviously blow out and be way, way more than the estimates (though the estimates are an incredibly loaded figure to start with - staged infrastructure projects are never presented like this). There is no point arguing about whether HSR is "economically viable" because it isn't. But neither are motorways and billions of dollars are spent on those, month in month out and nobody bats an eyelid. What's the difference? There is none, it's just that one we've become accustomed to as normal.

One day the economics of rail vs. air will flip. Perhaps quite dramatically.
Until then, yeah, HSR is not going to happen so we're right not to pick that battle. But in a perfect world, it would still happen (after many, many other projects that should've been done 20 years ago)

[#Metro]

Australia has demonstrated that we can do rail projects cost effectively.

This is a very poor approach to risk outlook. The project isn't required because planes already do point to point MEL-SYD-BNE, sans subsidies. Also, we had the Adelaide-Darwin freight rail project to put freight rail right up the middle of the country and that went into receivership because it didn't turn a profit.

HSR is not a need. MSR would do a sufficient job and not have such extreme risks associated with it. HSR is a dead horse, trotted out for the last 40 years. We need to stop flogging it.

Even if is marginally faster door to door (dubious), so what? So was Concorde, and it was uneconomical.

There are so many more pressing national priorities than saving check-in time or airport connection (and arguably, that could be improved/sped up too).

I'm open to seeing HSR between Sydney and Canberra as a demonstration project. I think it would be very illuminating for all concerned. Particularly when the inevitable cost overruns start and "more complex than first thought" issues start cropping up.

Sums it up:

[Gazza]

What's the ballpark cost differential between 200kmh running and 300 kmh running?

[HappyTrainGuy]

I think faster rail (160-200 km/hr; NOT HSR) is possible but I wouldn't let states run it. They are too concerned with their boundaries they would squabble about who's paying how much etc. Train frequency would likely be better too.

Have a small admin division in Canberra contract that out to an operator like DB or Keolis. The Green and Gold team (Barnaby et al.) would probably support it too.

The Commonwealth has powers to be responsible for interstate railways under Part V of The Constitution. Syd-Canberra would probably be the first one to tackle as the rail station would need to shift to a North or Northeast location.

Commonwealth/feds is ARTC.

If it's only doing 160/200kmh between capital cities, its still going to be tens of billions, but not really fast enough compared to driving and therefore wont get enough passengers.

Well if you take that position, you'll dump HSR in favour of a Maglev like China running at 600 km/hr with extensive tunneling. I don't think that works, given that the plane would still win on fare cost grounds.

It doesn't need to compete with planes. It does need to be faster than car. Rail can fill that space in the middle because that's where the contestable market is. Not everyone wants the Ferrari option.

There isn't much point spending $50 billion ++ going up against a plane that is doing 600-800 km/hr , taking off every 30 min and charging $120.

And as for faux capacity issues on the busy MEL-SYD-BNE air corridor, Brisbane just opened a second runway, Melbourne has two airports and Sydney is about to open a second one.

What exactly is the value proposition of HSR? You are paying a lot more ($50 bn) to get less (slower than plane). With Faster Rail (MSR?) you cut the costs.

How fast is the tilt train? I think that didn't get faster than 100 km/hr.

Depends on a few factors such as what tilt train, the location and time. 160kph running is it's max operating speed but crews have easily exceeded that. It's also the fastest train in Australia. It can run faster but upgrades to track infrastructure has been lacking from state government.

[ozbob]

And then there is WA ...

On the right track (as usual) .. even have the terminology correct.

ABC > Fast train concept plan linking Perth to WA's regions presented to state planners

Fast trains connecting Western Australia's regional cities to Perth and each other are part of a bold rail concept submitted to state planners.

Key points:
A concept plan for 180kph fast trains linking regional WA with Perth has been submitted to Infrastructure WA.

The plan was developed by Kevin McQuoid who says it would help deal with forecast regional population booms.

A sustainability expert says the idea has potential.

The "rapid rail network" concept, which would stretch from Geraldton to Esperance with stops in major cities and small regional towns, has been submitted to Infrastructure WA by former PR executive, teacher at Edith Cowan University and self-declared "railway obsessive" Kevin McQuoid.

Under the plan, the trains able to travel up to 180 kilometres per hour could deliver passengers from Bunbury to Perth in under an hour along the Forrest Highway corridor.

Thousands of kilometres of railways would link the Midwest, metropolitan Perth, South West, Great Southern, southern Wheatbelt and southern Goldfields. ...

Perth to Bunbury Faster Rail Business Case
https://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/projects/ProjectDetails.aspx?Project_id=110525-20WA-MRL

The Prospector (Perth <> Kalgoorlie)  railcars are capable of 200 km/h (124 mph), but track conditions restrict their top speed to 160 km/h (99 mph).  This line is standard gauge . I had a trip on it a few years ago, there are parts where there are speed restrictions ( < 160 km/h), but it is the right idea.  The rail cars track well at 100 mph.

Transwa Prospector Cars WDA class cross at Merredin
R Dow
Dec 2017
WDA003 WDA002 pic.twitter.com/pA9hvA3Ubf

— ozbob13 &#38;#128567;&#38;#128300;&#38;#128137;&#38;#128137;&#38;#128137;+&#38;#128137; (@ozbob13) June 19, 2020

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1242579201233793030

[Gazza]

I think it depends on the distance and actual Geographic location.

For Bunbury whole line is 160km long, and Geelong is 70km or so, and there is little of strategic importance beyond the end of the line, so yes definitely 200kmh running is fine because it still achieves a journey time of an hour or less, and that's the entire userbase.

I'm not sure if Esperance would ever get done, Albany maybe. Kalgoorlie is getting a bit far away for such a service to be popular at medium speed.

However, specifically for connecting major east coast cities and the respective intermediate regional centers "on the way" it makes sense to design for 300kmh, because traffic will be heavier and more tiers of service will be using it.
In other words, if you can justify a 200km/h train to Bunbury, population 70,000, you could justify a 300 km/h train to the Central coast and Newcastle, population 700,000.

[HappyTrainGuy]

So we didnt have a $10,000 tax hike for the NBN or Jobkeeper, and heck even the Pacific Motorway project was $15b over 24 years (With $4.9b of that going towards the 180km Ballina Woolgoolga segment)
So we can spend the big bucks when we want to.


Personally, I think $100b price tags are just trying to scare people off the project:


The other day the Feds were saying free RATs would be impossible because it would cost $13b per year. Its a common strategy to dramatically inflate costs when someone has already decided they dont want to do something.
I saw similar tactics used by opponents to gold coast light rail.

I mean seriously, Inland Rail is $9.9b for Melbourne to Brisbane.
And of course HSR costs more than a freight line, but its not 10x the cost.

As far as im concerned, Australia is at the point where $10-15b projects are common place, and this would roughly correlate with certain stages of the HSR system.

I've read the Grattan report, but there are a few things they got wrong, will be another post for another time.

As for the UK. They are terrible project managers and cost controllers. The Great Western electrification was cut short due to rising costs. Lets not forget that Crossrail was due to open in 2018 and is still not open.

Look to the French
LGV Bretagne-Pays de la Loire was 184km for 3.4b EUR in 2017 ..$18.5m per km

Australian Very Fast Trains-A Chronology  1998
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/Background_Papers/bp9798/98bp16

It is just endless studies ...

Lets be honest, the reason we dont have HSR is because we have had somewhat of a one party federal government that don't give a sh%t about passenger rail.
Coincidentally, we did have a government that did seem to care about it, and thats when projects started getting funding (RRL, MBRL ) and the feds actually took a modern look at the proposal then it was soon snuffed out when we got Abbot who thought we should 'stick to our knitting' and fund roads.

I dont think there is any technical or even financial reason Australia couldnt take the leap, we just lack the champions in government.
When you do get a minister enthusiastic about it, eg WA or Vic right now, progress is very quick.

And you get the same with state governments. Take QR. Over the past 20-25 years there have been numerous projects to upgrade the NCL to allow for longer freights and faster line running (Gympie North-Nambour realignments, Nambour-Caboolture double with quad provisions, Cairns-Townsville realignment, various bypasses, steel/timber to cement upgrades, timber bridge replacements etc) only to have outside powers say no or cut funding - best example is Nambour-Caboolture realignment for 160kph running. Look how that's turned out since it was first announced and planned since 2004. It got to Beerburrum and that's where the 160kph ends. The DTT leaves earlier than the ETT but takes 30 mins longer than the electric because it follows restricted signals out of brisbane and single track to Nambour. The spirit of the outback could be sped up but it too suffers from another body not wanting to spend money upgrading infrastructure - infrastructure such as timber/steel sleepers which limit how fast rollingstock can run. Run it in summer and boom heat speed restrictions come in which is what the suburban network had at Narangba a few years back with the timber sleepers forcing quite dramatic speed restrictions (75% of track speed ie 25kph in 100kph zones).

[SurfRail]

The only time I've ever done the Prospector, we travelled from KGB Headquarters (East Perth) to Kalgoorlie in the AM, and flew back in the PM on a Skywest (now Virgin Australia Regional) Fokker 100.  The flight was of course about 7 times faster than the eastbound leg.

I don't think there's much of a case for any regional rail in WA, there isn't enough population or potential population anywhere outside the 2 current routes.  The Prospector is already (just) faster than driving, and any substantial population growth is only going to happen along the coastline.

Faster trains to Bunbury and as far as Busselton I can see happening.  Probably not to Margaret River, but Busselton is only 50km further away which is a short coach trip from (and after hooning along about 220km of rail would still be pretty quick).  Collie, Manjimup and the other larger towns would just be connected to Bunbury by coach instead of having direct coach services to Perth, as it would be faster on the train.

[#Metro]

What's the ballpark cost differential between 200 km/h running and 300 km/h running?

This specific task is the domain of the proponents (State and Federal Govt's). A good estimate would also depend on the particular engineering needs of each of the lines concerned.

That said, building to a 200 km/hr speed standard would be a ballpark about 3x cheaper than building to a 300 - 350 km/hr HSR standard (1). There would be differences in the Australian context, but what is not in dispute is that as you get faster the costs start to go up very steeply (2,3)

Study (3) also finds that upgrading existing ROW is much cheaper than greenfield (new alignment). Building to HSR standards would require more greenfield, whereas just upgrading existing ROW or what we call here at RBOT "steam ironing" would use less (3).

The cost to upgrade a railway is one-third of the corresponding cost to build. This assumption was made as all or a portion of the grade, structures, and necessary geometry is already in place, requiring adaptation or partial
building, rather than complete rebuilding

Here I use a relative cost method/approach. Whereas absolute costs are likely to change over time, the relative costs between each individual speed band are likely to be preserved over time.

Costs

79 mph (127km/h):       1.00 <--- Basic commuter rail line costs set to 1x
110 mph (177km/h):     1.67
125 mph (201km/h):     2.47 <--- MSR/Fast Rail
150 mph (242km/h):     3.33
220 mph (354km/h):     7.18 <--- HSR

Calculation: 7.18 divided by 2.37 gives 2.9 round to 3x, relative cost difference (result).

So, for a $100 billion project at HSR standards (2,3) we would expect a global cost of say a third of this - $30 billion or so if built instead to MSR/Fast Rail standards. If we can get the costs down to this $30 billion level - so $15 billion roughly for each of the SYD-BNE and SYD-CBR-MEL lines - that would start to look reasonable IMHO.

You would get your regional pax, and trains that are much faster than car.

Notes

(1) Using $2011, and using the HSR definition in IA Phase 1 report of 2013 as a train going at 350 km/hr in non-urban areas. See Page V of the HSR Phase 1 report https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/rail/publications/high-speed-rail-study-reports/files/HSR_Phase1_Report_Executive_summary.pdf

(2) http://hotrails.net/2014/08/track-costs/

(3) A planning methodology for railway construction cost estimation in North America, Von Brown, Jeffrey.
https://doi.org/10.31274/etd-180810-709

[HappyTrainGuy]

But you also have to remember that the topography is always going to be the biggest issue and biggest cost problem especially considering most of eastern australia is on some type of flood plain. There are routes you can take but expect the speed to drop, distance increases which ultimately means time increases. It also limits where you can run/towns to visit and who you are actually trying to cater for. So while it might be cheaper it's not always the best option to get people on to it vs other alternatives. By also going HSR you can potentially run tiered systems with express and all stoppers. It also allows you to still build future proofing by enabling spurs to be built ie the main hsr corridor runs direct from Coffs Harbour to Byron Bay then cooloongatta to connect to the QR network then straight to brisbane while and at a later date have the all stopper branch west at Coffs even at a fast rail speed in parts and run to Grafton back to the main line branch off to Lismore either at hsr or fast rail speeds then back to the main line to stop at Byron Bay and onto Brisbane.

Sure it might be cheaper but having raw speed is the draw card to getting people to actually use it. It allows those going the long haul access at speed but it also allows those inbetween access to the hsr network.

[#Metro]

Sure it might be cheaper but having raw speed is the draw card to getting people to actually use it. It allows those going the long haul access at speed but it also allows those inbetween access to the hsr network.

Not every passenger is financially viable to chase.

It the reason why QANTAS sends QANTAS planes to some cities, and sends Jetstar planes to others. Despite the fact they are essentially the same company.

MSR provides regional connectivity and travel times lower than car for potentially 3x less cost.

The trip generation is much lower outside urban areas simply because these trips are much less likely to be daily commutes.

But you also have to remember that the topography is always going to be the biggest issue and biggest cost problem especially considering most of eastern australia is on some type of flood plain.

Australia has had quite a few long tunneling projects now (many of these in Brisbane and Sydney). Much of the Sydney metro is tunnelled so there is hope for getting a train on a sensible alignment to Newcastle.

By also going HSR you can potentially run tiered systems with express and all stoppers.

Yes, but if you step back and take holistic view of the transport system, the train can do all stops and for people who want the non-stop journey... they can check-in at the Airport and get the direct plane. So between these two modes, it is actually already 'tiered'.

The product is transport/mobility, not HSR trips. It is important to keep that in mind IMHO.

[Gazza]

Study (3) also finds that upgrading existing ROW is much cheaper than greenfield (new alignment). Building to HSR standards would require more greenfield, whereas just upgrading existing ROW or what we call here at RBOT "steam ironing" would use less (3).

The problem is, there is no viable way to steam iron much of the route.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_railway_curve_radius

200kmh requires an 1800m curve radius.


Here for example is a example of the alignment around Taree NSW, and around Gunning NSW.
I have overlaid an example 1800m radius curve.
You can see that because our railways are so old and the back to back curves are so close together, it is simply not possible to use the existing ROW and even maintain 200kmh


So therefore, within NSW at least, it should be considered as a greenfield project.

Have a scroll up the line. More or less from Junee in NSW to Brisbane, there is really no significant straight section of track.

This is exactly what happened with the Athens to Patras railway (These cities are 170km apart, the line wont go any further because there are no other major cities beyond on that axis)
They still had to do extensive tunnelling.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Corinth+201+00,+Greece/@37.9216956,23.0963238,621m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x14a0144ce0a75b5f:0xcbec55e5ce5dabf4!8m2!3d37.9386365!4d22.9322383



If you are building a new decent alignment and have rugged terrain then theres no avoiding this sorry.


In Victoria, the situation is much better, with the North East line to Albury actually having quite straight runs of track, interspersed with the odd turn.
As you can see, you could do 200kmh turns or 300kmh (4000m) turns and it probably only makes marginal difference, both look straightforward and low risk to build since its all open farmland, so why not just build the faster option?
The line is already phasing in Velocities that can do 160kmh, so the next logical improvement is to 300 kmh...I wouldnt spend billions just to go from 160 to 200, but it would be worthwhile to near double the speed to 300.

https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3200.0;attach=2174;image

For CBD access to Melbourne, well you want to build the straightest route possible to cut down tunneling length, so you can run fast through that bit.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Sure it might be cheaper but having raw speed is the draw card to getting people to actually use it. It allows those going the long haul access at speed but it also allows those inbetween access to the hsr network.

Not every passenger is financially viable to chase.

It the reason why QANTAS sends QANTAS planes to some cities, and sends Jetstar planes to others. Despite the fact they are essentially the same company.

MSR provides regional connectivity and travel times lower than car for potentially 3x less cost.

The trip generation is much lower outside urban areas simply because these trips are much less likely to be daily commutes.

But you also have to remember that the topography is always going to be the biggest issue and biggest cost problem especially considering most of eastern australia is on some type of flood plain.

Australia has had quite a few long tunneling projects now (many of these in Brisbane and Sydney). Much of the Sydney metro is tunnelled so there is hope for getting a train on a sensible alignment to Newcastle.

By also going HSR you can potentially run tiered systems with express and all stoppers.

Yes, but if you step back and take holistic view of the transport system, the train can do all stops and for people who want the non-stop journey... they can check-in at the Airport and get the direct plane. So between these two modes, it is actually already 'tiered'.

The product is transport/mobility, not HSR trips. It is important to keep that in mind IMHO.

Not quite. JetStar is the budget airline version of Qantas created in response to Ansett collapsing and Virgin Australia/Virgin Blue as it was named at the time entering the market instantly filling the void left by Ansett and eating directly into the Qantas market share. Jetstar allowed them to somewhat fight Virgin on pricing while Qantas maintained the premium status. Qantas is now marketed as the premium service with more options, more leg room, more services, better terminals, terminal facilities etc while Jetstar is a no frills service that doesn't have the the same frequency or service options and makes up money in other areas ie baggage costs. Basically you get what you pay for. Virgin has split that and sits on the fence. You pay more to fly with virgin but they counter that with a higher frequency than what Jetstar provides (usually only a single daily trip at an odd time - such as not to eat into the Qantas market) but not as much to fly on a premium service such as Qantas.

By providing a sub standard service you just offer more incentives for the motor industry to push ahead with road upgrades and infrastructure which is not sustainable. Take the ICE trains when they first came out. At busy times they ran as 8 car trains (3x power pairs and 2x trailers) and they were filled to the brim in both directions. That was mostly down to how slow and congested the Bruce Highway was. Realignment and bypass projects were devised and faster rollingstock designed and built to continue the momentum. Then the highway got upgrades and bypasses done with a modal shift slowly moving to cars. Same with the motorwagons that trains used to have. Pull up to Roma street, your car gets driven onto the train, get in the sleeper carriage and get off at your destination with your car. Wasn't uncommon to have 3 of them on the back of the sunlander and spirit of the outback. Now the highway still gets bypasses/realignments, trains are still slow, railway infrastructure doesn't get upgraded as they can't justify spending money (there's a reason why QR undercharge access fees on the western line), extra features have been removed (sleepers/motorwagons), staff cuts at stations have changed how quick you can board the long distance services, track alignment is the same, bypass projects get shelved etc.

Look at how the Bruce Highway has changed between Gympie and Brisbane from 2010 to now vs the railway line. It's seen some dramatic changes such as the whole Sunshine Coast interchange and the bypass/realignment north of cooroy. The highway bypass at gympie at the moment goes directly past the train station further competing with heavy rail. Why bother with a train doing 60kph in parts when you have a 110kph highway on a great alignment.

[#Metro]

200kmh requires an 1800m curve radius.

There will be places where a coincident straight route will satisfy both HSR and MSR standards.

However, from the same source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_railway_curve_radius

120 km/hr 630 m curve radius <--- Urban and suburban train networks
200 km/hr   1300 m curve radius <--- MSR with tilt trains
200 km/hr  1800 m curve radius <--- MSR
250 km/hr  2800 m curve radius
300 km/hr    4000 m curve radius
350 km/hr  5400 m curve radius <--- HSR

HSR would need curves that are 3x wider than for MSR going at 200 km/hr. So when we are drilling a tunnel and a curve needs to be put in place, that tunnel would need a 5400 m curve radius in it, which is going to be much more expensive than a tunnel with a 1800 m curve radius.

Interestingly, the curves can be lower if the trains tilt. Perhaps the MSR alternative option could use tilting rollingstock.