High Speed and Fast Rail

[#Metro]

Spend it in the cities and suburbs! More frequent buses, more frequent trains, send the unblocker through the train network

[O_128]

Its kind of funny that this route gets 4 tph and we cant do that on our suburban system 

[ozbob]

From BuisnessDay click here!

A transport pipedream gathers serious steam

A transport pipedream gathers serious steam
Mark Hawthorne
June 4, 2011

The July release of the feasibility study into a high-speed rail line has the lobbyists in overdrive.

AHIGH-SPEED rail line along Australia's east coast has been a pipedream for 25 years, but a federal government feasibility study has rekindled serious interest in the project.

The $20 million study was announced during the 2010 election and will examine the basic requirements for a high-speed network linking Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne. It will provide costings, timetables and potential routes.

The reaction has been swift. Last month a delegation of Italian companies descended on Canberra as part of a lobbying mission, before the release of the study next month, and to try to woo Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese.
Advertisement: Story continues below

This week, it was the French who turned on the charm, with the French-Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry hosting more than 100 guests at its High-Speed Rail Business Forum in Melbourne.

The keynote speakers were Jean de la Chapelle, managing director for the Australasian offshoot of high-speed rail provider Alstom, and Clement Michel, chief operating officer at Keolis Downer EDI Rail, which operates Yarra Trams.

They detailed a service that could take passengers from Melbourne to Sydney inside three hours, with much-needed pressure being taken off airports. De la Chapelle told the audience that Alstom was willing to co-invest with the federal government to build a high-speed rail network in Australia.

''If you had asked me three years ago, when I first arrived in Australia, if this project was possible, I would have said it was a dream,'' he said. ''Now we have bipartisan support in Canberra.''

Both de la Chapelle and Michel agreed that ''massive'' government funding would be necessary.

[#Metro]

Fiesta of concrete!

This is going to make engineering and consulting companies rich and leave us with rubbish train frequency on our suburban systems!

Both de la Chapelle and Michel agreed that ''massive'' government funding would be necessary.

Yeah, bundles of cash straight from heaven in a botched PPP (almost all PPPs something goes wrong) landing into your shareholder's bank account.

[frereOP]

Fiesta of concrete!

This is going to make engineering and consulting companies rich and leave us with rubbish train frequency on our suburban systems!

Both de la Chapelle and Michel agreed that ''massive'' government funding would be necessary.

Yeah, bundles of cash straight from heaven in a botched PPP (almost all PPPs something goes wrong) landing into your shareholder's bank account.

The billions of dollars being wasted on an obsolete internet concept because of emerging wireless and satellite technology would be better spent on HSR.  Forget about the cost of building and operating a HSR network, the REAL question should be what will be the cost (to society as a whole) of NOT building it and we all know the answer to that - MORE than what is being spent on the NBN.

[#Metro]

The billions of dollars being wasted on an obsolete internet concept because of emerging wireless and satellite technology would be better spent on HSR.  Forget about the cost of building and operating a HSR network, the REAL question should be what will be the cost (to society as a whole) of NOT building it and we all know the answer to that - MORE than what is being spent on the NBN.
   

One mistake does not deserve another....

... and the fact that HSR would likely result in a zero net increase in mobility...

[somebody]

Fiesta of concrete!

This is going to make engineering and consulting companies rich and leave us with rubbish train frequency on our suburban systems!

Both de la Chapelle and Michel agreed that ''massive'' government funding would be necessary.

Yeah, bundles of cash straight from heaven in a botched PPP (almost all PPPs something goes wrong) landing into your shareholder's bank account.

The billions of dollars being wasted on an obsolete internet concept because of emerging wireless and satellite technology would be better spent on HSR.  Forget about the cost of building and operating a HSR network, the REAL question should be what will be the cost (to society as a whole) of NOT building it and we all know the answer to that - MORE than what is being spent on the NBN.

Wireless sucks.

It's generally fast enough, but is laggy and frustrating to use.

[Stillwater]

So Alstom is willing to invest in the project -- probably one cent for every 99 that governments contribute.  Note the comments that governments would have to invest 'massively' in HSR.  The $20 million feasibility study is cheap in comparison with the eventual cost -- not much change from $100 billion I would have thought.  Whenever governments entertain the thought of HSR, or feel pressured by others to implement the 'mirror strategy' (have a look at it), the public servants always suggest a feasibility study that presents the insurmountable problem (mainly cost) and everyone shrugs their shoulders and things go on hold for another 10 years or so -- until someone suggests HSR for Australia and we have another feasibility study.  I hope one such study finds a way for governments to claw back some of the profits that developers will make by building whole new towns (or adding to ones already there) at strategic locations along the track.  Goverments would have to fight off every municipal government at whistlestops along the way who will be calling for a station to be built every few kilometres when, in reality, there would be only four or five stops between Sydney and Melbourne at most.  And what if the private sector can't make a goer of HSR?  Does the private sector just sell it down at a bargain basement price, and cop the loss, or would it revert to government ownership and control, given the amount of equity governments would have in it.  States are unlikely to want to do anything in that case, so the feds would be expected to run passenger services, same as they did in the old days when (government owned) Australian National operated the Indian-Pacific and The Ghan.

[somebody]

Wireless has a market, but not where wired is a available.

[O_128]

Its an interesting scenario and 50billion seems about right for brisbane to sydney considering what china got for 30 billion.

Stops at Gold coast, Byron Bay, Coffs Harbour,Newcatle, Sydney.

Ive said it before and Ill say it again, We have a mining boom so where is all this money going and why are we dirt broke.

[somebody]

Ive said it before and Ill say it again, We have a mining boom so where is all this money going and why are we dirt broke.

Could it be because our vast wealth is being squandered on mediocrity?  Road spending in SEQ is around $3bn p.a.  CityRail have a budget of nearly that amount also.

[Stillwater]

The available investment money, and the workforce to build an HSR, even if feasible, is going to the mining boom.  Australia is building some major infrastructure projects atm, so this is forcing up price of steel and concrete etc.  These factors will make HSR price high and the investors know that can negotiate a deal with government that limits their exposure (e.g. Airtrains).

[#Metro]

The available investment money

Getting the cash is the first issue. Plus it is up against the NBN construction too.

and the workforce to build an HSR

Which is all being tied up in the mines etc at the moment

, even if feasible, is going to the mining boom.  Australia is building some major infrastructure projects atm, so this is forcing up price of steel and concrete etc.

This is probably one factor in why we have super-expensive projects at the moment

These factors will make HSR price high and the investors know that can negotiate a deal with government that limits their exposure (e.g. Airtrains).

I suspect that the only HSR viable in Australia (i.e. turns a profit/break even) is coal HSR to the port

[ozbob]

I suspect that the only HSR viable in Australia (i.e. turns a profit/break even) is coal HSR to the port

  I sometimes ponder the notion if the pax out of Ipswich guaranteed to carry a few lumps of coal that might help get a decent frequency improvement?   

[#Metro]

I sometimes ponder the notion if the pax out of Ipswich guaranteed to carry a few lumps of coal that might help get a decent frequency improvement?

Each CityTrain could have a coal bin attached as a trailer at the back -- that would up the frequency for sure!

[O_128]

HSR seems to work everywhere but here. The melb to sydney route is one of the busiest in the world, if anywhere could justify HSR its here, Sydney needs a second airport so HSR to Canberra would be an excellent choice, A HSR train would only take about 45min to an hour to get there. Not to mention the amount of regionalization that would occur places like albury would experience huge booms. We seem to be wasting money on the pathetic NBN when HSR would be a much better use of funds.

Its funny how there is 40 billion for NBN but people say 40 billion is to expensive for HSR

[somebody]

HSR seems to work everywhere but here. The melb to sydney route is one of the busiest in the world, if anywhere could justify HSR its here, Sydney needs a second airport so HSR to Canberra would be an excellent choice, A HSR train would only take about 45min to an hour to get there. Not to mention the amount of regionalization that would occur places like albury would experience huge booms. We seem to be wasting money on the pathetic NBN when HSR would be a much better use of funds.

Its funny how there is 40 billion for NBN but people say 40 billion is to expensive for HSR

But still a lot further than most HSR routes.  Also, not the easiest terrain and a long trip through both SYD and MEL outskirts.

I'm more worried about the poor service Sydney-Newcastle, Sydney-Woolloongong and Brisbane-Nambour, all of which can quite easily be improved. The first two have trouble Cowan-Ourimbah and Waterfall-Thirroul respectively, but relatively easy beyond that.

[#Metro]

HSR seems to work everywhere but here.

Yes, but even if HSR "works" (what do you mean by that- that it breaks even? That is has 10 million pax per year at 70% subsidy??? something else???)
I see much higher benefits in sending that cash into a rail rennovation fund for Australian cities and urban areas.

The melb to sydney route is one of the busiest in the world, if anywhere could justify HSR

This fact is trotted out, but it doesn't tell us anything about whether HSR is viable or not or whether there is further scope
for Air traffic expansion. So it merely hints at viability without actually presenting any strong case that it actually is viable.

its here, Sydney needs a second airport so HSR to Canberra would be an excellent choice,

Canberra is a very small place and the second airport in Sydney issue is a political block, not a technical or engineering one. Politics change.
The second thing is that HSR needs to enter the cities. There is no reason for me to believe that NIMBYISM will take over a somewhere has to be found to
place those tracks somewhere in urban areas- so it would also face the same difficulties as an Airport really. Someone's house is very likely needing to be demolished, and while not impossible, would also present
its own challenges.

A HSR train would only take about 45min to an hour to get there. Not to mention the amount of regionalization that would occur places like albury would experience huge booms.

Yes, but the reason why development occurs is because of an increase in benefit- in this case a reduction in travel time/increase in mobility. Albury already has an airport http://www.alburycity.nsw.gov.au/www/html/310-albury-airport.asp and while it does contribute economically, it hardly has made Albury "boom". I stand by my point, and a very important one, that after spending billions on HSR, nobody would be able to get around any faster than they do today in a plane. That is to say, that there is ZERO net increase in mobility. If that's what people want to spend $$$, that's fine, but I'd rather spend the cash on rail renovations of existing urban systems.

We seem to be wasting money on the pathetic NBN when HSR would be a much better use of funds.

Yes, but that money will be returned over time as that is going to break even or at least run at a profit. Will HSR do this?

[somebody]

BCN-MAD (Barcelona-Madrid) was previously the world's busiest air route, and it has just had a train added.  The difference is though, that it is around half the distance of SYD-MEL.

How do the economics of that one add up? (Not a rhetorical question BTW)

[#Metro]

What mobility means: http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5958.0

* Speed

HSR will be fast, but so is a plane. I don't think there will be much difference in speed, and the HSR will probably be slower
than the plane. Natural disasters (flood, bushfire etc) will also affect HSR more than air services (planes do not need a continuous fixed guideway).

* Frequency
http://albury-webfids.sputnikagency.net.au/cgi-bin/webfids.pl is the Website for Albury Airport.
Today (Sunday) there are 10 flights to Sydney, and two to Melbourne.
Tomorrow (Monday), there will be

* 10 flights to Sydney
* 2 Flights to Canberra
* 3 Flights to Melbourne

Will the HSR have the same or better frequency out at Albury?
I think it would likely be worse...

* Scope of hours
This metric is probably less useful for long distance services, as people are willing to make timetabled plans. No need for TUAG.

* Interconnectedness
Direct trip, three major destinations directly connected at Albury (Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney)
HSR would probably collect some pax at small towns, but we are talking small small places. I doubt there is much of a holiday or business market
out at these tiny towns.

* Coverage
Fixed guideway rail is great for connecting major cities and trunk corridors (i.e. and small places along the way) but planes don't have a guideway and so
can serve a lot of areas.

So my view is:

1. HSR is not an increase in mobility over planes (or planes + coach connections)
2. The money would be better spent on urban rail projects fixing up current systems
3. Funding HSR will have the exact opposite effect to what the proponents intend- billions and billions of dollars will be locked up in a massive monument of concrete in exchange for trading in the opportunity to finally fix up our urban train systems and frequencies on that.

Stop worshipping concrete people!!!

[Jonno]

Fiesta of concrete!

This is going to make engineering and consulting companies rich and leave us with rubbish train frequency on our suburban systems!

Both de la Chapelle and Michel agreed that ''massive'' government funding would be necessary.

Yeah, bundles of cash straight from heaven in a botched PPP (almost all PPPs something goes wrong) landing into your shareholder's bank account.

The money for metro transit does not have to compete with this. It just needs to be redirected from freeway building.

[#Metro]

I'm not convinced.

Its easy to imagine there is this magical pool of waste just sitting there waiting to be untapped so that we can protect the delusion that we can fund anything and everything we want.

Even if we had the cash, I would still object to putting it into HSR because HSR would NOT be a mobility improvement.

I doubt it would be an improvement vs air on:

* speed
* frequency
* coverage
* price

Of course, all of the material that has come out so far seems to have almost exclusively focus on sexy trains zooming around everywhere at high speed.

[somebody]

It's not a priority compared to sorting out the city based transport.

[ozbob]

There is a wild card in all of this.  It is the future of air travel itself.  There are already early signs that the peak of air travel has been reached.  QANTAS, Tiger they are all starting to cut. Airlines in the States in trouble.  I think we will get back to a situation a bit like flying was in the 1960s and 1970s.  Expensive and a novelty.  They will be running the planes on biofuels, unless they can get a gas turbine system of some sorts working.  Not sure how safe that would be though.  

This may actually alter the whole HSR dynamic for Australia, because the time of travel will be secondary as it will be the relative costs that will mean folks will go by rail, even if it takes 10 hours to go to Sydney for example.  It may mean just substantial upgrades on the existing heavy rail systems will be the outcome.  Such that speeds of up to 180 km/h are achieved for passenger trains.  It will be a balance between cost and reality. Most of the long haul network will be shared by passenger and freight as it is now.  The economic reality of wide spread population centres.

[somebody]

High Speed Rail is NOT HAPPENING if we have to construct the carriages out of stainless steel.  So, why in Australia, do we do this?  I don't believe that anyone else does it outside of North America.

[colinw]

I tend to agree with ozbob on this issue.

I do not see a high speed line happening inside the next 30 years.  Before that happens, we are likely to see realignments, duplication and 25KV AC electrification of principal interstate routes, starting with Sydney to Melbourne. (Sydney to Melbourne 25KV electrification nearly got up in the '80s, to the point that a spec for an electric version of the XPT was issued).

I think the future of inter-city travel in the next 30 years is a combination of increasingly expensive air travel, 200 km/h tilt trains, and a continuing high rate of personal vehicle use (even if power sources start to change).

If we see HSR within that time frame, it will most likely be a politically motivated and rather unprofitable Sydney to Canberra line.

[ozbob]

GIZMODO --> First Solar Tunnel To Help Power High-Speed Trains Opens In Europe

[Zoiks]

@Tramtrain mobility is not really such a concern with longer distance travel. People will usually adhere to the timetables whether it is train or rail.

Anyway... using some actual figures here guys from the AECOM study. Yes i did some rounding. The 10c/pax/km is a figure I found somewhere a while ago.

Sydney to Canberra
290km
Train @160km/h max takes 180min (162min ride)
Plane takes 120min (1 hour flight, half hour at airport, half hour travel)

Projected demand under above conditions in 2021
0.492m Air users
7.036m Train users
0.253m Car users

HSR takes 1000 people per train (75% loading per train in brackets)
7036 Trips a year (9381)
19 Trips a day (25)
Train every 2.5hrs (2) hours in each direction
@10c/pax/km = $29 ($39) to break even per passenger

Plane takes about 100 people - Virgin E90 (75% loading per plane in brackets)
4920 Trips a year (6560)
13 Trips a day (18)
Plane every 3.7 (2.6) hours in each direction
Current air fares = $99


Sydney to Canberra
290km
Train @350km/h max takes 90min (64min ride)
Plane takes 110min (50min flight, half hour at airport, half hour travel)

Projected demand under above conditions in 2051
0.128m Air users
11.948m Train users
0.063m Car users

HSR takes 1000 people per train (75% loading per train in brackets)
11948 Trips a year (15930)
32 Trips a day (43)
Train every 1.5 (1.1) hours in each direction
@10c/pax/km = $29 ($39) to break even per passenger

Plane takes about 100 people - Virgin E90 (75% loading per plane in brackets)
1280 Trips a year (1706)
3.5 Trips a day (4.6)
Plane every 13.75 (10.4) hours in each direction
Current air fares = $99


Sydney to Melbourne
880km
Train @350km/h max takes 240min (213min ride)
Plane takes 150min (1.5 hour flight, half hour at airport, half hour travel)

Projected demand under above conditions in 2051
6.611m Air users
6.264m Train users
2.086m Car users

HSR takes 1000 people per train (75% loading per train in brackets)
6264 Trips a year (8352)
17 Trips a day (22)
Train every 2.8hrs (2.2) hours in each direction
@10c/pax/km = $88 ($117) to break even per passenger

Plane takes about 250 people - Qantas 763 (75% loading per plane in brackets)
26444 Trips a year (35164)
72 Trips a day (96)
Plane every 0.66 (0.5) hours in each direction
Current air fares = ~$100 on average by the looks of it

And thats just direct fares...
Dont forget about the indirect benefits of developing HSR
@160km/h max top 3 are in order: Time savings(34%), Unimproved land value increase(26%), Road Decongestion(21%)
@350km/h max top 3 are in order: Road decongestion33%), Time savings(21%), Unimproved land value increase (19%)

Congestion will cost us $20.4B by 2020 and $80B by 2050

[#Metro]

@Tramtrain mobility is not really such a concern with longer distance travel. People will usually adhere to the timetables whether it is train or rail.

Anyway... using some actual figures here guys from the AECOM study. Yes i did some rounding. The 10c/pax/km is a figure I found somewhere a while ago.

"Mobility is not a concern"

Gee whiz, if that's the case, ANY train will do; High OR low speed!

I also find it difficult to believe that "time savings" are a benefit when ALL trips shown are actually SLOWER by train than by air.

What is the point of this system if it doesn't increase mobility? If you want to improve land values, you may as well dig holes and bury cash in them to improve the land value, it would actually be cheaper.... and is HSR the best and only way of achieving these benefits? I would think not...

I still think the money is better spent on improving mobility on existing urban systems because it will return a much higher benefit.

[O_128]

That study seems skewed. Many countries are now getting up to 400kph, Italy has ordered new trains capable of 420kph. Any study should be factoring in a 400km + running speed.

[#Metro]

I look forward to the proper HSR report. I don't see the purpose in replacing an airplane that can do Sydney-Mel or Mel-Bris etc with a train.
It's effectively an exchange of vehicle IMHO at the cost of $Billions for no net improvement in speed, journey time or access. Nobody will be able to get around any faster or to new destinations that they can't already get to by air IMHO.

Would you cough up billions for that? I wouldn't!

[SurfRail]

I look forward to the proper HSR report. I don't see the purpose in replacing an airplane that can do Sydney-Mel or Mel-Bris etc with a train.
It's effectively an exchange of vehicle IMHO at the cost of $Billions for no net improvement in speed, journey time or access. Nobody will be able to get around any faster or to new destinations that they can't already get to by air IMHO.

Would you cough up billions for that? I wouldn't!

Good luck with that high mobility air travel when the kerosene stops flowing. 

Having said that, yes, metropolitan systems are more important, and fixing urban congestion is of considerably greater benefit to GDP, productivity, land value and any other metric people could care to bring up.

[somebody]

Good luck with that high mobility air travel when the kerosene stops flowing. 

Use ethanol instead.  It was good enough for the V2.  You mightn't be able to fly as far or as cheaply, but you'd still get there, and domestic flights wouldn't be that much more expensive - it's the long range ones which would take a hit.

[#Metro]

Yes, but electricity comes from power stations. Now if everyone uses electricity, does that not also imply a large price rise
in power as well?

[SurfRail]

Yes, but electricity comes from power stations. Now if everyone uses electricity, does that not also imply a large price rise
in power as well?

It's easier, cheaper, better for everybody's health and better for the long-term sustainability of the power generation industry to convert baseload electricity generation over time to more sustainable means. 

Electricity consumption costs and infrastructure associated with a VFT would hardly be back-breaking anyway.

The main cost is in corridor acquisition and when you build the thing, which is why as much of it as possible should be preserved so we can do something with it when we have got our urban networks in some semblance of order.

[Jonno]

I look forward to the proper HSR report. I don't see the purpose in replacing an airplane that can do Sydney-Mel or Mel-Bris etc with a train.
It's effectively an exchange of vehicle IMHO at the cost of $Billions for no net improvement in speed, journey time or access. Nobody will be able to get around any faster or to new destinations that they can't already get to by air IMHO.

Would you cough up billions for that? I wouldn't!

However this is exactly what is happening in Europe. Short-haul flights are disappearing as people move to the downtown convenience of HSR.

[#Metro]

When is this report due again? Should be any day soon... 

[Stillwater]

Not many more sleeps, TT ......... end of July is the due date. 

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/index.aspx

[#Metro]

Right.

I am not against any particular mode of transport per se (even car and steam train have their places), but if you want to mount a convincing case and get people to part with their money, (especially billions!) then it has to make sense. Hopefully this report will clarify things for both sides.

[Stillwater]

While the report will go to government at the end of July, government will take a bit of time to digest it, so expect public release in about late September (or Melbourne Cup Day if it wants to bury the report).  At the same time, the government has also called for a feasibility study into a second Sydney airport, so the two will be weighed together.