High Speed and Fast Rail

[frereOP]

'Australia's population is set to double in a few decades'?  It is about 22.5 million now and the credible projections are for 36 million by the middle of the century.  The ARA has contracted the organisation of this conference to a company that 'touts' the concept at a starting price that sometimes drops as the numbers fail to eventuate.  Note the agenda is being 'worked up', so it is fluid.  No doubt the invitation has gone out to a minister or two, and the chair of Infrastructure Australia to address the gathering.  Until these people come on board, the leading act is a Greens Senator from WA.  Who wants to pay the asking price to listen to him?  For those in the business, the cost of attending is a tax write-off.

Having organised conferences myself (including an International Conference with over 180 delegates), there are standard ways to manage the costs.  Fixed costs (those costs that remain the same whether you get 1 or 1,000 delegates such as room hire, insurance, abstract book markup, web site etc) should be covered by allocating those costs to 50% of the expected number of delegates.  If you think you'll get 100 delegates, costs should be shared over 50 and if you get more, then that is clear profit.

Relative costs are on a per delegate basis (eg meals and refreshments, conference sachets etc, abstract book) and are accumulated with each registration so it doesn't matter whether 1 person or 1,000 turn up but if, as in the example above you need 50, then you would cancel if you didn't get that by a particular time beforehand.  Many Conference Organisers elect to have cheaper "early bird" registrations to facilitate registrations by their cut-off date or this reason, but this lot seems not to, and from what you say work the opposite way.  If this company works like that, why would anyone want to register up front knowing the prices will fall?

Irrespective of how they run their business, for that sort of registration you would expect it to run over several days in a top hotel and with exceptional catering including a conference dinner.  And as you say, they haven't even finalised the list of keynote speakers.  Keynote speakers should be locked in BEFORE registrations open and should be clearly stated on the web site.

This just sounds like a cynical money making exercise for the organisers to me and it seems a bit dodgy (amateurish) as well.

[ozbob]

Stand Up for Trains

--> http://www.standupfortrains.org/

[ozbob]

From the The Boston Globe click here!

Blocking high-speed rail

Blocking high-speed rail
By Derrick Z. Jackson
Globe Columnist / January 29, 2011

WHEN PRESIDENT Obama proposed in his State of the Union address that 80 percent of Americans should have access to high-speed rail within 25 years, he drew laughter by saying, "For some trips, it will be faster than flying — without the pat-down.''

It will be much faster if we end the political pat-down for high-speed rail itself.

One promising hallmark of the Obama administration was the $8 billion in stimulus funds and $2.5 billion in subsequent grants to jump start high-speed rail projects. Several key Republicans support high speed rail in principle, even if they disagree with Obama and the Democrats on funding mechanisms and focus.

In a hearing this week, Republican Representative John Mica of Florida, the new chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Republican Representative Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania, chairman of the subcommittee on railroads, pipelines, and hazardous materials, called for massive public-private partnerships way beyond federally subsidized Amtrak to bring true high-speed rail to the Boston-to-Washington Northeast Corridor. Shuster even used the "I-word'' currently being flayed by many Republicans: "Failing to invest in the critical Northeast Corridor will ensure continued congestion.''

But too many other Republicans want to derail everything. The new governors of Ohio and Wisconsin gave back $1.2 billion in stimulus funds for high-speed rail projects, campaigning against them as taxpayer waste. The Republican Study Committee, a caucus of 175 House Republican conservatives, wants to completely de-fund Amtrak and high-speed rail. Caucus chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio asked in 2009, "Why should we subsidize an industry that will directly compete with the automobile industry, which is so critical to our area?''

Undeterred by such sentiments and the new Republican majority in the House, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry plans to file legislation in the next few weeks that would boost high-speed rail even more. His general plan calls for the development of a national high-speed railway system with spokes radiating up and down both coasts and across to the Midwest, Southeast, and Southwest. The legislation would provide for up to $20 billion in competitive grant funding for projects that deliver train speeds of at least 110 miles per hour and incentives and preferences for projects that can deliver speeds above that.

Kerry said he has started talking with the likes of Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, who recently rejected a new commuter rail tunnel into Manhattan, to see if concepts such as an infrastructure bank can help.

"It's so obvious that if you can bring trips down in time, we would be wasting less time from families, move products faster, raise property values, and create jobs in a larger area,'' Kerry said in a telephone interview this week. "It drives me crazy that we're fighting just to hold on to Amtrak, that we're arguing to hang on to the infrastructure of our parents and grandparents.''

Earlier this month, a report from America 2050, a consortium of regional planners, researchers, and policy makers, found that the potential for increased train ridership and decreased auto and short-haul airspace congestion remains immense for the Northeast Corridor, the Great Lakes region, and California and the Southwest.

A study last fall by the London School of Economics found that high-speed rail significantly increases the gross domestic product of cities connected on the route, compared to unconnected cities. "By driving economic agents closer together and increasing access to regional markets, HSR [high-speed rail] should promote economic development,'' the study concluded.

The Boston-based Economic Development Research Group says that the job, wage, and business-sales creation of high-speed rail would be massive, whether for giant cities like Los Angeles or Chicago, or for capital cities like Albany, which would be more efficiently connected to New York City.

"The ability of people to be within two or three hours of major economic centers will change labor-market dynamics and increase our competitive advantage,'' said the research group's Stephen Fitzroy. "You give businesses a much greater access to a larger pool of skill sets and create a more diverse labor force in the process.''

With that, it is indeed crazy that we are fighting to hold on to the infrastructure of the past. It is time for high-speed rail, without the political pat-down

[#Metro]

But too many other Republicans want to derail everything. The new governors of Ohio and Wisconsin gave back $1.2 billion in stimulus funds for high-speed rail projects, campaigning against them as taxpayer waste. The Republican Study Committee, a caucus of 175 House Republican conservatives, wants to completely de-fund Amtrak and high-speed rail. Caucus chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio asked in 2009, "Why should we subsidize an industry that will directly compete with the automobile industry, which is so critical to our area?''

Well at least in America they come out and say it in black and white. Over here it is hush-hush, grovelling apologies "but we just need a balanced approach". (the word balance sounds nice, after all who would advocate for an imbalanced sounds scary and greedy).

[frereOP]

From the The Boston Globe click here!

Blocking high-speed rail

Blocking high-speed rail
By Derrick Z. Jackson
Globe Columnist / January 29, 2011

WHEN PRESIDENT Obama proposed in his State of the Union address that 80 percent of Americans should have access to high-speed rail within 25 years, he drew laughter by saying, "For some trips, it will be faster than flying — without the pat-down.''

...

But too many other Republicans want to derail everything. The new governors of Ohio and Wisconsin gave back $1.2 billion in stimulus funds for high-speed rail projects, campaigning against them as taxpayer waste. The Republican Study Committee, a caucus of 175 House Republican conservatives, wants to completely de-fund Amtrak and high-speed rail. Caucus chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio asked in 2009, "Why should we subsidize an industry that will directly compete with the automobile industry, which is so critical to our area?''

...
With that, it is indeed crazy that we are fighting to hold on to the infrastructure of the past. It is time for high-speed rail, without the political pat-down

You only have to watch "Fahrenheit 9/11" to understand how corrupt the US oil industry is and how entrenched in the Republican Party oil-politics is.  I'm not making any accusations here, but when a former US President (and the most incompetent they have ever had) and his very astute and political savvy Vice-President have backgrounds entrenched in the domestic (ie Texas) and international (ie Saudi) oil industry, it's easy to speculate on the REAL reasons the US invaded Iraq, and why they support industries which rely on the consumption of fossil fuels rather than those industries which are efficient and in the long run will return the best value for their investment dollar in a whole range of areas.

No wonder the US economy is in far worse financial shape than the Irish economy - dinosaurs running a basket case economy based on "economic rationalism".  All that does is defer costs to other sectors of the community or to other generations.  It's like McDonald selling cheeseburgers for $2 but with the cost of disposal of the discarded wrappers on our streets deferred to others (ie the taxpayer through council services).  

[O_128]

So I took my first high speed train Rome to Florence yesterday and all I can say is that it was amazing, it took 1hr 15 min with an average speed of 210km an hr ( total distance was 245km) and top speed reached was 260km , the ride was superb and to feel the acceleration was quite odd, was also quite funny to see the train overtaking so many cars, cost was 44 euros and train was packed, the Rome to Florence runs at a frequency of about every hour and more on weekends.

[ozbob]

   Sounds great!

[frereOP]

So I took my first high speed train Rome to Florence yesterday and all I can say is that it was amazing, it took 1hr 15 min with an average speed of 210km an hr ( total distance was 245km) and top speed reached was 260km , the ride was superb and to feel the acceleration was quite odd, was also quite funny to see the train overtaking so many cars, cost was 44 euros and train was packed, the Rome to Florence runs at a frequency of about every hour and more on weekends.

If you haven't seen the movie "The Tourist", with Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie do so!  It starts off on a high speed train from Paris to Florence and gives a great idea of what HST travel is really like.

HST is a premium travel service - it is not a student/pensioner alternative to flying that much of rail travel in Australia currently is.

Sydney-Canberra could probably operate a similar frequency!

[O_128]

Will upload some photo once I get back, am traveling to Venice tomorrow and very excited for it, Sydney to canberra would really work, I much prefered to traveling easyjet which is more expensive

[ozbob]

From The Courier click here!

Fast-train study consultant favours link

Fast-train study consultant favours link
JACOB SAULWICK
02 Feb, 2011 03:00 AM

THE federal government will spend $20 million on a detailed study into high-speed rail on Australia's east coast. It has commissioned a consultant that has already indicated a fast train should be possible.

The Minister for Transport, Anthony Albanese, said yesterday AECOM Australia would complete a study by the middle of the year into potential routes for a fast train between Sydney and Newcastle, extending either side to south-east Queensland and Melbourne. The study would look at where stations should sit, and determine rough journey times and transit costs.

For AECOM, a global consultant, the work builds on a report it has released in conjunction with the lobby group for private infrastructure firms, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia.

That report, A realistic pathway to very fast trains, argued there was a very good chance that a high-speed rail link along the eastern seaboard would soon be necessary. Released in September, it called on the government to start examining where rail lines should be built and to start buying land to preserve corridors.

The executive director of Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, Brendan Lyon, said the work AECOM would conduct for the federal government was likely to reflect this conclusion.

''I would be very surprised if any report doesn't support long-term planning so that this remains an option into the future,'' Mr Lyon said.

Proposals for high-speed rail in Australia have emerged sporadically since the mid 1980s.

They have invariably faded, however, due to the prohibitive cost of development, uncertainty about how many people would use the trains, and a lack of clarity about where the lines should be built.

The first AECOM report argued that locking up land for a rail corridor between Melbourne and the Sunshine Coast would cost about $13.7 billion in 2010. If the government waited until 2030 to buy the land, the cost would rise to $57 billion.

The report, which did not provide detailed route options, estimated that trains could travel from Sydney to the Gold Coast in 2½ hours, to Melbourne in three hours, and to Newcastle in less than 40 minutes.

[O_128]

Could be possible? There are 80km of tunnel on the Florence to Venice line

[#Metro]

My question is, how do they move freight around? Are there special slow lines that are separate?

[O_128]

My question is, how do they move freight around? Are there special slow lines that are separate?

The hsr were built parallel to the old ones which are maintained and have slow commuter trains on them

[ozbob]

Hartford Courant --> Mr. Shuster Has Right Idea About High-Speed Rail
High-Speed Rail Key congressman right to push for Northeast rail system

[frereOP]

My question is, how do they move freight around? Are there special slow lines that are separate?

Many HSR lines in Europe (and all Shinkansen lines in Japan) are new (eg TGV Est and Eurostar) in which case HSR has exclusive use of the track with freight and slower passenger trains remaining on the original lines.  Dedicated HSR is a "light rail" system and HSR lines are not built to withstand the weight of heavy freight traffic.  However, many HSR lines - especially in Germany and England (eg London to Glasgow, Hanover to Berlin) - are upgraded existing lines with in-cab signaling.  These lines carry HSR, frieght and slower rail traffic as well.

HS trains can use existing lines but are obviously speed restricted - eg ICE between Dresden and Berlin, and TGV and ICE operations within Switzeraland such as Bern to Interlaken but hey, with a spectacular view like that through the Swiss Alps, why would you want to go fast?

[#Metro]

See this is the thing: I think this is the future.
The trains are operated like this out of necessity. If we build HSR in Australia we have the opportunity to build it from scratch. We just cannot ignore non-passenger revenue streams here, particularly in the age of E-bay and online shopping where there will be a need to distribute non-dangerous goods all around the country.

With some proper engineering standards and research, surely HSR freight could become a viable possibility and an extra revenue source. There are many rail lines where passenger transit is not economically profitable, but freight is. That's the insight- if you have more revenue streams, the project becomes more viable.

[Golliwog]

TT, the problem with freight is that is far heavier than passenger traffic. The static load (ie: the physical weight of the train and its load) itself however isn't the problem, its the dynamic loads. Dynamic loads are easiest to understand if you picture a weight hanging on a spring, and how it will bounce up and down if you pull it down. I'm sure you can find some better explanations with Google, but the point is with trains these are caused by track imperfections either from deformations to the rail head itself, or from deformations in the ground beneath the ballast (these aren't so bad if they occur uniformly, but when you have differing soil types (which is basically everywhere) you have parts that are stiffer than others and so compress less underloading). It is all but impossible to predict where these will occur. The problem is however that once these imperfections start to occur they speed up their own formation as they cause the dynamic motion to increase. Dynamic motion of the trains can IIRC as much as halve the load of the train when it lifts (increasing the risk of derailment) or double if not triple the load on the down swing.

There are some part solutions to some of these problems, but the end outcome is that they are very expensive.

[#Metro]

I don't think this is a new problem, and I think as this field matures we will see solutions, as we have seen with trains and buses, trams and cars as they have gone from conception to market and evolved over that time. Maybe just run a longer train with less stuff in each carriage so that it is not that heavy at each point. Engineers have solutions, no doubt.

The big question is 'what is to be done with the legacy system', are there improvements worth chasing on that too?

[#Metro]

HSR Freight:

http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature1346/
http://www.transport-expertise.org/index.php/2008/01/24/high-speed-freight-rail-already-a-reality/

[colinw]

This discussion is going off into cloud cuckoo land as far as I am concerned.  May as well be discussing the tooth fairy or the easter bunny.

HSR freight may be useful for light and time sensitive freight, but the name of the game for heavy freight is conservation of momentum & energy. Get 'em moving and keep them moving at as close to constant speed as possible.  Every time a freight train has to slow down for a permanent speed restriction, or stop at a loop, not only is it losing time, it is incurring a huge energy (and thus fuel) penalty to get back up to speed.  The worst possible kind of freight line is one with lots of low speed curves, and a low number of loops combined with moderate to high traffic so that most trains get held at many loops en-route.  (Remind you of anything? QLD & NSW north coast lines!)

The goal for Australia's freight rail system should be deviations, loops & passing lanes that try to achieve sensible conventional speed operation with as little deceleration & acceleration as possible.  Speeds of 80km/h to 120km/h are optimal - beyond that you start burning too much fuel for too little benefit.  The interstate standard gauge track needs to be brought up to US Class 1 railroad loading gauge and axle load - allowing off the shelf locos to be purchased and put into service rapidly if required.

HSR for passenger services, and some light freight is another matter entirely, and a system radiating out of Sydney would have some benefits (but don't go to Melbourne via Canberra please - put Canberra on a branch).

I suspect I'll be pushing up daisies before any such thing comes to pass.  The politics here are just too poisonous & convoluted to allow high speed rail to be be built at present.

[#Metro]

HSR freight may be useful for light and time sensitive freight, but the name of the game for heavy freight is conservation of momentum & energy. Get 'em moving and keep them moving at as close to constant speed as possible.  Every time a freight train has to slow down for a permanent speed restriction, or stop at a loop, not only is it losing time, it is incurring a huge energy (and thus fuel) penalty to get back up to speed.  The worst possible kind of freight line is one with lots of low speed curves, and a low number of loops combined with moderate to high traffic so that most trains get held at many loops en-route.  (Remind you of anything? QLD & NSW north coast lines!)

Sunshine Coast line? 

[colinw]

Indeed.  The Sunshine Coast part of the NCL is a textbook case of a railway that is inherently inefficient.  Insufficient & short loops, many permanent speed restrictions.  Trains are forever slowing down then accelerating again - burning energy every time they do so.

Its not HSR, but even in this discussion the overwhelming case for a Sunshine Coast upgrade pops up again!

[#Metro]

What the Sunshine Coast has is LSR, LOL!!! 

[Stillwater]

If you live in a railway town on the Sunshine Coast Line, your nostrils are assailed regularly by the open cattle trains heading south.  (Empty cattle trains head north.)  Those cows would have heart attacks whizzing along on HSR, and what of the cost of freight HSR?  We would all be paying $50 a steak to cover the transportation costs.     Talk of low-hanging fruit?  strategic realignment of the SCL and longer passing loops would achieve wonders for the line's efficiency and train speed. 

The increasing freight task will create problems for Brisbane's suburban rail system in the not too distant future, as passenger and freight trains will have to mix on the network -- containerised freight to and from the north, a heap of fruit and produce transportd south to the markets, the coal trains and trains heading to Acacia Ridge and the Port of Brisbane.

Track work is not sexy, and yoy can't hang a sign on it (or at least one that would be seen), a la 'this is the 45th project of 100 to improve SEQ train track network'.  Some simple 'little projects'  (crossing loops, improved signalling and the like) would do wonders to like network efficiency.

[somebody]

This discussion is going off into cloud cuckoo land as far as I am concerned.  May as well be discussing the tooth fairy or the easter bunny.

HSR freight may be useful for light and time sensitive freight, but the name of the game for heavy freight is conservation of momentum & energy. Get 'em moving and keep them moving at as close to constant speed as possible.  Every time a freight train has to slow down for a permanent speed restriction, or stop at a loop, not only is it losing time, it is incurring a huge energy (and thus fuel) penalty to get back up to speed.  The worst possible kind of freight line is one with lots of low speed curves, and a low number of loops combined with moderate to high traffic so that most trains get held at many loops en-route.  (Remind you of anything? QLD & NSW north coast lines!)

The goal for Australia's freight rail system should be deviations, loops & passing lanes that try to achieve sensible conventional speed operation with as little deceleration & acceleration as possible.  Speeds of 80km/h to 120km/h are optimal - beyond that you start burning too much fuel for too little benefit.  The interstate standard gauge track needs to be brought up to US Class 1 railroad loading gauge and axle load - allowing off the shelf locos to be purchased and put into service rapidly if required.

HSR for passenger services, and some light freight is another matter entirely, and a system radiating out of Sydney would have some benefits (but don't go to Melbourne via Canberra please - put Canberra on a branch).

I suspect I'll be pushing up daisies before any such thing comes to pass.  The politics here are just too poisonous & convoluted to allow high speed rail to be be built at present.

I thought 160km/h was considered the limit for freight trains?  Obviously, this would be assuming no curves with lower restrictions.  In the US, freight trains are limited to about 127km/h.  This is due to standards for trackside fencing which kick in at 80mph.

Would the US loading gauge fit under the wires in Sydney?  There's a lot of other work such as tunnels also in achieving that.

[ozbob]

From The Advertiser click here!

Adelaide must be in high-speed rail loop

    * BUSINESS EDITOR, CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL
    * From: AdelaideNow
    * January 31, 2011

SOUTH Australia should sit up, take notice and claim a seat at the table of the federal inquiry into high-speed rail.

The initial inquiry, due to report by July this year, risks freezing SA out of the picture for a major piece of nation-building infrastructure.

SA has long battled to keep pace with the more populous eastern States and a high-speed rail network that literally leaves Adelaide out of the loop would seriously disadvantage us.

This issue and others affecting SA are examined in the SA Business Monthly lifout in The Advertiser on Tuesday.

The high-speed rail project is a long way off but just as it took many decades to go from wishful thinking to reality for the Alice Springs to Darwin rail track, a high-speed rail network linking the capitals will eventually be built.

In the decades ahead, petroleum prices will soar, making car and air travel considerably more expensive. Coupled with greenhouse gas concerns, this will accelerate demand for rail as an alternative. In pushing our case, SA should enlist an unlikely ally  Melbourne.

While Adelaidians frequently compare their city to Melbourne, the Victorians' real rival is Sydney.

It should be pointed out to Melbourne that with a network extending to Adelaide, Melbourne would be a node equal to Sydney, rather than the last stop at the end of the line.

Victoria could also be sold the benefits of Horsham becoming the only stop on a Melbourne-Adelaide route. This would open up the western Victorian region that would otherwise risk becoming isolated.

SA has a proud history in the rail sector, being home to some of the most important and innovative rail organisations, such as the Australian Rail Track Corporation.

Obviously, it would cost many billions of dollars extra to include the link to Adelaide and it would not be an easy case to mount on strict profit criteria.

But if we do not get in there and stake a claim, future generations will condemn us as we get left behind when the economic benefits of the project begin to flow.

[frereOP]

Adelaide must be in high-speed rail loop

With Gillard on the nose and Abbot without any sort of vision what so ever, it is imperative that HSR get locked in before the next election.  Now if Abbot had even suggested sacrificing the NBN for HSR he might have actually done something useful for once.

[ozbob]

From the Railway Gazette click here!

Six-year US high speed rail programme proposed

Six-year US high speed rail programme proposed
09 February 2011

USA: Vice-President Joseph Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood unveiled an ambitious $53bn six-year high speed and inter-city passenger rail programme on February 8.

Biden said that clarifying the role of federal funding would provide states and cities with the certainty needed to make long-term plans, however the proposal was criticised by the Chairman of the House Transportation Committee

As the first step, the President's budget for the coming fiscal year will allocate $8bn for faster passenger rail services, focusing on three types of corridor

    * Core Express: electrified trains running at 200 to 400 km/h 'or higher'.
    * Regional: 145 to 200 km/h.
    * Emerging: up to 145 km/h to provide access to the wider inter-city network.

The 'core' would be developed through public-private partnerships involving DOT, states, the freight railways and other private-sector companies. Applications for federal funds will be simplified, with all high speed and inter-city rail programmes merged into two new accounts, covering network development including new infrastructure, and system preservation including renewal and maintenance. Each would initially be funded with $4bn of federal money.

However, the chances of the plan becoming law are open to question. Republicans determined to cut spending are now in charge of the House of Representatives, and although some endorse high-speed rail, they want it managed by the private sector.

Chairman of the House Transportation Committee John L Mica criticised the $10·5bn first round of grants awarded last year, claiming 'what the Administration touted as high-speed rail ended up as embarrassing snail-speed trains to nowhere'. Mica said that 'rather than focusing on the Northeast Corridor, the most congested corridor in the nation and the only corridor owned by the federal government, the Administration continues to squander limited taxpayer dollars on marginal projects.'

[ozbob]

MEDIA RELEASE
The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
   
01 February 2011
AA011/2011

Work Starts on High Speed Rail Study

The feasibility study commissioned to determine the economic benefits and financial viability of a high speed rail network along Australia's east coast has started following the appointment of outside experts to complete the first stage of this work.

A consortia lead by AECOM Australia - a leading global consultancy - will identify possible route and station options, a process which will provide the basis for determining indicative transit times and construction costs.

This first stage is expected to be completed by the middle of this year.

Beginning shortly thereafter, the study's second stage will determine an optimum route alignment, identify patronage levels, develop robust cost estimates and investigate financing options.

In its totality, our feasibility study seeks to build on the previous work that's been done and once completed, will provide the basis for an informed public debate about whether this technology is an appropriate response to our nation's future transport needs.

Given the high level of interest in the study, my Department is in the process of setting up a formal reference group to make sure the views of organisations such as the Australasian Railways Association and the CRC for Rail Innovation as well as state and territory authorities are taken into account.

The AECOM Australia consortia comprise KPMG, Sinclair Knight Merz and Grimshaw Architects.

The study's terms of reference are attached.

The Gillard Labor Government has put high speed rail back on the national agenda because of its potential to spur economic development and transform the way Australians get around this vast continent of ours.

But importantly as well as planning for the future, we're also investing in Australia's existing rail infrastructure.  Indeed we've already lifted spending on rail tenfold and are currently rebuilding more than a third of the interstate rail freight network.

Terms of reference

A strategic study will be undertaken on the implementation of a high speed rail network on the east coast of Australia.

The study will focus on identifying possible routes, corridor preservation and station options, including city-centre, city-periphery and airport stations. This will provide a basis for route development, indicative transit times and high-level construction costs.

As part of the core network element at the centre of the east coast corridor, the Newcastle-Sydney 'spine' will be a central aspect of this work. Options for links northwards to Brisbane and southwards to Canberra and Melbourne will also be considered.

Specifically the study will:

    * Identify undeveloped land corridors and/or existing corridors that could be considered for a high speed railway, and preservation strategies;
    * Identify the main design decisions and requirements to build and operate a viable high speed rail network on the east coast of Australia;
    * Present route and station options, including indicative construction costs and interaction with other transport modes;
    * Provide costs estimates of undertaking the next stages of work, such as detailed route alignment identification and corridor resumptions;
    * Identify potential financing and business operating models for the construction and operation of a high speed railway;
    * Provide advice and options on relevant construction, engineering, financial and environmental considerations.

The study will be managed by the Department of Infrastructure and Transport. It will draw on expertise from the public and private sectors, as well as international experience, growth forecasts and other contemporary data. Stakeholders will be consulted and contribute views through a formal reference group, which will include representatives from relevant Commonwealth, state and territory agencies and other key stakeholder groups.

The high speed rail implementation study will by July 2011:

    * Identify the requirements for implementation of a viable HSR network on the east coast;
    * Identify strategic route and station options, including high-level costing.

This initial phase will provide a basis for consultation and inform the specific direction of a second phase, including consideration of the specific corridors, routes and associated issues to be targeted for more detailed examination.

Further work from July 2011 will include:

    * Detailed corridor alignment identification;
    * Identification of preliminary geotechnical issues;
    * Development of comprehensive robust cost estimates for preferred options;
    * Further investigation of investment and (public and private) financing options;
    * Detailed patronage and revenue forecasts;
    * Consideration of preferred options in relation to other modes (for example, airport capacity implications resulting from diversion of air traffic to train).

This final work and report will take approximately 12 months to complete and inform the Australian Government and state and territory governments' consideration of next steps for high speed rail in Australia.


URL: http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/releases/2011/February/AA011_2011.htm

[#Metro]

But importantly as well as planning for the future, we're also investing in Australia's existing rail infrastructure.  Indeed we've already lifted spending on rail tenfold and are currently rebuilding more than a third of the interstate rail freight network.

Terms of reference

Ahem. SUNSHINE COAST!!!

[Stillwater]

Sadly, travel as far as you can on the Sunshine Coast and North Coast lines and you stay in the one state.  The federal government sees its responsibility as facilitating INTERSTATE trade and commerce (ie, with NSW and beyond) and not INTRASTATE rail; or intrastate rail as a consequence of interstate rail improvements (ie, the Sydney-Brisbane) rail corridor.  Federal references to interstate rail, as they relate to Queensland, seem to be limited to the line north of Casino and Kyogle to Acacia Ridge and the Port of Brisbane.

The federal government has included the Sunshine Coast Line in the national transport network that it is prepared to fund, but has not allocated money for its upgrade, preferring, instead, to put money towards upgrading the Bruce Highway.

[Stillwater]

This story is relevant to this discussion thread:  http://www.railexpress.com.au/archive/2010/january/january-20-2009/other-top-stories/queensland-lease-links-state-to-artc-rail-network

[Fares_Fair]

MEDIA RELEASE
The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
   
01 February 2011
AA011/2011

Work Starts on High Speed Rail Study

The feasibility study commissioned to determine the economic benefits and financial viability of a high speed rail network along Australia's east coast has started following the appointment of outside experts to complete the first stage of this work.

URL: http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/releases/2011/February/AA011_2011.htm

Is it just me, or is there a pie in the sky?
I find the irony all to real when I look at the Sunshine Coast's rail network from Gympie North to Brisbane.

Still, it needs to start somewhere, maybe a study to determine it's viability will help (future elections).

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[#Metro]

"Work has begun on assessing whether pie in the sky can land in Brisbane..."

I think that we should definitely study it. We might surprise ourselves and learn something. On the other hand I am not holding my breath. Even if it is viable, i would still prefer those impossibly large billions to be spent in the cities on fixing up the current commuter rail system.

Interstate travel there are options- fly, train, car. Going from your house to the CBD there is congested trains or congested roads. Not much of a choice!

[frereOP]

Interstate travel there are options- fly, train, car. Going from your house to the CBD there is congested trains or congested roads. Not much of a choice!

It's not a question of choosing hwich one is needed most OR which options are financially viable or not.  The biggest barrier to economic development in this country is the desire for infrastucture and the unwillingness to pay for it.

We want a tunnel, we don't want a toll and we don't want higher taxes.  We want security of water supply, we don't want higher water charges or higher taxes to pay for it.  We want more reliable electricity supply but we don't want higher electricity charges or taxes to pay for it.  DREAM ON!

The problem is, if we don't build these kinds of infrastructures, we don't save money, we just defer the cost to other people who end up paying in other ways anyway.  So we don't build a rail line and save billions of dollars of taxpayers money in construction costs and operating subsidies.  We defer the costs to commuters who have to pay for congestion through increased fuel consumption and lost productive time, airport upgrades through higher airfares, and the cost of road trauma, increased medical costs and insurance premiums, and higher carbon emmissions from the consumption of fossil fuels.

It really is about time that the Australian people realised that lower taxes are not sustainable, nor is the principle of "user pays" because there are bigger rewards to be reaped for the nation (and the economy) as a whole by everyone paying for these infrastructure upgrades whether they use them directly or not.  The problem is from a political pespective, there are no votes in WA for an HSR in Eastern Australia even though the West will benefit indirectly.

Do we really need to have the disposable income to buy the latest hand held gadgets and phones every 6 months, or replace our flat screen TV' every 2 years, r to buy useless bling, or might that money be better spent on providing better facilities and services that in the long run will provide a far better return on the investment for the nation as a whole?  It isn't communism, but it is economic rationalism, and that's what we need.

[#Metro]

FrereOP,
There are some very large projects in the pipeline.

NBN
CRR and various other rail tunnels
Dilapidated rail networks in cities
and so on

I think we are seeing a new breed of project here- the megamega project. These projects are even bigger than the usual megaproject, and easily cost upwards of 20 billion. That is just a mind-blowingly huge cost. The sheer scale of these projects are unprecedented- we are talking projects that span the entire country here.

You can begin to see why I am very cautious about things like these.

I would much prefer moving the masses inside cities before moving masses between cities. For an economy to run, people need to get to work on time. There is a need to do something about the Coronation Drives and Moggill roads in our cities, a much greater need I feel, than getting someone Brisbane-Sydney.

But in any case, lets see what the business case says. We might surprise ourselves.

[frereOP]

FrereOP,
There are some very large projects in the pipeline.

NBN
CRR and various other rail tunnels
Dilapidated rail networks in cities
and so on

I think we are seeing a new breed of project here- the megamega project. These projects are even bigger than the usual megaproject, and easily cost upwards of 20 billion. That is just a mind-blowingly huge cost. The sheer scale of these projects are unprecedented- we are talking projects that span the entire country here.

You can begin to see why I am very cautious about things like these.

I would much prefer moving the masses inside cities before moving masses between cities. For an economy to run, people need to get to work on time. There is a need to do something about the Coronation Drives and Moggill roads in our cities, a much greater need I feel, than getting someone Brisbane-Sydney.

But in any case, lets see what the business case says. We might surprise ourselves.

I don't disagree with you Tramtrain.  I think we can afford many of these projects but what I'm saying is that in order to have these, we need to sacrifice something else and disposable income is one area we need to seriously think about.  People want all this infrastructure but don't want to pay for it - let the government pay they say!  Well, where do they think the government gets its money from?  What people don't realise is they are paying for the privilege of NOT building infrastructure through the cost of inefficiency and lost productivity but they are willing to accept that because it means they have lower taxes.  It's a no-win situation for governments!

[ozbob]

The Huffington Post --> Bill Nye 'The Science Guy' Blasts US For Resisting High-Speed Rail (VIDEO)

[Jonno]

I don't disagree with you Tramtrain.  I think we can afford many of these projects but what I'm saying is that in order to have these, we need to sacrifice something else and disposable income is one area we need to seriously think about.  People want all this infrastructure but don't want to pay for it - let the government pay they say!  Well, where do they think the government gets its money from?  What people don't realise is they are paying for the privilege of NOT building infrastructure through the cost of inefficiency and lost productivity but they are willing to accept that because it means they have lower taxes.  It's a no-win situation for governments!

I would go further and highlight that each year we spend billions on expanding urban freeway road space around our country which does not deliver a single km , minute or $ of congestion reduction.  The redirection of this funding would allow for many or the necessary projects to be completed which will actually return significant reduce the burden on the broader tax dollar (road trauma and health costs) This in turn allow more money for more transit projects.

Our tax burden at the moment looks significant regarding infrastructure because it is being spent on projects with negative returns.  Thus the prospect of building all the necessary transit project seems daunting but once spent correctly it will start it own momentum of tax improvements.

[ozbob]

Chinese railways by Zhang Yimou.mp4