High Speed and Fast Rail

[frereOP]

Like all innovations, there would be take up times (like the Airtrain service in Brisbane).  These might be quite long but once the mindset is there it becomes the preferred option.

Canberra - Sydney would be the obvious first choice.  Airlines won't like it because it will eat into their revenue stream significantly (one has to wonder if they lobbied against HSR between Canberra and Sydney in the past).  If they are smart, they could even become part of the consortium just as Air France is doing in Europe.  Imagine if QANTAS or Virgin (Virgin trains - now there's a thought!) was a partner and you could earn QF Frequent Flyer or Velocity points on an HSR from Canberra to Sydney!

This would suit business travelers especially because with power available at your seat for your laptop and your mobile phone (which don't have to be switched off) as well as Wi-Fi for Internet access, it even means you can work while you travel!

[ozbob]

From the Melbourne Age click here!

Greens to push $40bn fast-rail link to Sydney

Greens to push $40bn fast-rail link to Sydney
CLAY LUCAS
April 23, 2010

IT IS the dream that will not die: Melbourne to Sydney by train in four hours, instead of the current 11½ hours.

Today, Greens Leader Bob Brown will launch a campaign at Southern Cross Station for a major concept study into a high-speed rail link between Australia's two biggest cities, which his office has costed at $40 billion.

This follows the launch in January of a ''pre-feasibility'' study by the Cooperative Research Centre for Rail Innovation, which examined a plan to cover the 900-kilometre Sydney-Melbourne route by train at an average 280km/h.

Mr Brown said a high-speed rail link was needed to provide ''fast, reliable transport for 75 per cent of our population ... [And it] would also generate thousands of jobs and promote regional development.''

He called on the Rudd government to fund a $10 million one-year planning study.

Several attempts have been made at getting a Melbourne-Sydney fast-rail project started. The last attempt, involving an initial Sydney-Canberra link, failed in 2000 when the Howard government baulked at its $4.5 billion price tag.

With no train capable of speeds over 250km/h, Australia lags the world.

A total of 1737 high-speed trains currently operate on dozens of different routes, mostly in Europe and Asia, says the International Union of Railways.

Advocates of a high-speed rail link point out that the Melbourne-to-Sydney air corridor is the world's third busiest, with 121 daily flights. The rail alternative is a half-day journey with a top speed of 130km/h.

David George, head of the industry and federally funded Cooperative Research Centre for Rail Innovation, said high-speed rail would be competitive with air on the route. ''If you travel by plane, by the time you get out to the airport and pick up your luggage and then do it all in reverse at the other end, it's probably four hours.''

He said high-speed rail was being built in many countries including India and China. ''It's not just the preserve of First World countries any more.''

Japan's first Shinkansen line between Tokyo and Osaka opened in 1964. It now carries 360,000 people a day at up to 300km/h. France's TGV network has been running since 1981.

Based on European construction costs of between $A19 million and $A48 million per kilometre, a Sydney-Melbourne link could cost up to $43 billion.

[frereOP]

These costings come from the report on the viability of HSR in Australia produced by the CRC for Rail Innovation.  I posted a link to this report in a previous message and it is worth reading.

[#Metro]

Lets start small.

Now that we have costs to build, we need costs to operate and then an estimate of the benefits.
Both of these are missing.

To be viable commercially (i.e. without subsidy) we ignore the capital (start up) costs and focus on the ongoing costs- things like interest payments and costs to run trains. This is what "keeps the lights on" so to speak.

How many trains will run each day and how many passengers would (estimated) catch it?
What is the capacity of a train? How high does the fare have to be to break even?

Then we'll have a ballpark figure.

Don't forget Queensland as well- there are a lot of small towns up the coast to Cairns, the current Tilt Train is not fast enough.
Could consider something higher speed.

Edit: new figure given in later post.

[#Metro]

From the International Transport Forum
and OECD

http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP200816.pdf

New York Times Blog
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/how-big-are-the-environmental-benefits-of-high-speed-rail/

[ozbob]

From the Washington Post click here!

U.S. high-speed rail's ship finally comes in

U.S. high-speed rail's ship finally comes in

By John Rosenthal
Special to The Washington Post
Sunday, April 25, 2010

Like the gleam on the tracks from an oncoming locomotive, high-speed rail transportation in the United States may be finally coming into sight. Before the end of the decade, rail backers promise, Americans will be traveling on bullet trains, the way Europeans and Asians have been doing for half a century. At speeds of up to 220 mph, high-speed rail will make it possible to travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco in less than three hours, or half the time it takes to drive. Tampa to Orlando will take less than an hour, or 35 percent faster than by car. You'll be able to get from Chicago to St. Louis in less time than it takes to fly -- after you factor in the hours spent getting to and from distant airports and the hassle of getting through security 90 minutes before your flight.

The myriad benefits of high-speed rail have long been apparent to anyone who has ridden Japan's Shinkansen trains or France's TGV. These so-called bullet trains are faster than driving, more comfortable and convenient for short distances than flying and, because they run on electricity, don't rely on foreign oil imports. Trains arrive in downtown city centers and are usually linked to public transit.

"High-speed trains consume less fuel, produce less carbon dioxide, and promote urban redevelopment, which has broader environmental benefits," said Kevin Brubaker, deputy director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center in Chicago, which has worked to build civic support throughout the Midwest for investment in rail transportation. "We see high-speed rail as a way to improve mobility while improving the environment."

Perhaps the chief obstacle standing in high-speed rail's way has been a lack of support from the White House. That changed when President Obama took office in 2009 and promised to make high-speed rail a legacy of his administration, much as the Interstate Highway System was for Dwight D. Eisenhower's. And the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (a.k.a. the stimulus) provided the perfect opportunity for the administration's plan to garner bipartisan support.
ad_icon

Rail infrastructure improvements are exactly the kind of "shovel-ready" projects the stimulus was designed to underwrite in hundreds of congressional districts across the country, creating or saving tens of thousands of high-paying skilled jobs in construction, manufacturing and engineering that can't be exported overseas. The administration says that more than 30 rail manufacturers have agreed to establish or expand operations in the United States if they are hired to build the next generation of railroads.

"There are tons of projects the railroads have had in their filing cabinets for years, but they just haven't had the money to implement," said James P. RePass, president and chief executive of the National Corridors Initiative, a nonprofit that advocates for increased rail infrastructure.

The administration requested $8 billion in stimulus funds for rail projects, and in January it announced its first awards. The biggest grants went to Florida ($1.25 billion), which plans to use 168 mph trains to link Orlando to Tampa by 2014 and to Miami by 2017, and to California ($2.34 billion), which has the nation's most ambitious and most developed plan to link its major cities by bullet train.

While those awards capture the imagination with their promise of shiny new bullet trains rocketing across the two states, most of the money will be spent more mundanely, on projects to speed up conventional rail. Trains traveling at 200 mph are still a long way down the track in such places as Detroit, Seattle and Charlotte. But funding for incremental improvements to tracks, signals and rolling stock will raise average speeds on existing conventional rail lines. "If you can upgrade the places where trains can only travel 10 mph, you can knock an hour off the trip between Chicago and St. Louis," said RePass.

"The key to going fast is not going slow," added Brubaker.

Even the fastest trains will never approach the efficiency of an airplane for a cross-country trip, of course. That's why the administration's plan focuses only on corridors between cities 100 to 600 miles apart. In clusters of cities such as Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati; Portland, Ore., and Seattle; or Charlotte, Richmond and Washington, rail links are expected to reduce congestion both on the highways and in the skies. The corridors will be separate from Amtrak, the nation's existing conventional rail passenger system, though Amtrak may bid competitively to build some of the networks.

The airlines have not taken a position on rail investment, but Joseph Szabo, head of the Department of Transportation's Federal Railroad Administration, said that they have nothing to fear. "If we do this properly, people will be able to flow from auto to rail to air like they do in Europe or Asia, using the most efficient mode for each part of the journey," he said. "That will help airlines prosper because it will free up capacity to use their infrastructure in ways that are more profitable."

RePass cautioned that transforming the nation's transportation system into something like the European model will resemble a local more than an express. "We've spent half a century disinvesting in rail; we're not going to overcome that overnight."

But Szabo said that the renewed commitment to rail is already picking up steam. "This is a 40-year build-out, just like the Interstate Highway System was in the 1950s," he said. "Looking back at the history of the highway program, it took more than three years to get federal money out the door. We anticipate money out the door in less than three months."

Although there's an almost surprising lack of organized opposition to high-speed rail, that doesn't mean that there aren't still hurdles to clear. In April, for example, the Los Angeles Times reported that mass transit executives in Southern California objected to the state's plan to run high-speed rail on exclusive new tracks. They claimed that doing so would require condemning hundreds of homes and businesses and add $2 billion to the price tag.

Meanwhile, Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.), the Republican leader of the House Transportation Committee and a supporter of high-speed rail, questioned why so many awards were going to conventional rail projects rather than to raising speeds on Acela trains -- the closest thing the United States has to true high-speed rail -- between Washington and Boston.

"I'm p%ssed  because they didn't do the Northeast corridor," he said. The Northeast received $1.2 billion in stimulus money, of which less than half a billion was for high-speed rail projects. "We're doing everything we can to push this country into the 1960s of passenger rail service," said Mica.

Overall, however, enthusiasm remains high for rail investment at any speed. "There's such a level of excitement" in Congress, the Senate and in state departments of transportation, said Szabo. "There's no turning back."

His boss, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, put it even more bluntly, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. "Don't be against high-speed rail; it's coming to America," he told a group of airline executives in March. "This is the president's vision, this is the vice president's vision, this is America's vision."

"People are still going to fly," he added, "but we need alternatives. So get with the program."

[frereOP]

From the Washington Post click here!

U.S. high-speed rail's ship finally comes in

U.S. high-speed rail's ship finally comes in

His boss, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, put it even more bluntly, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. "Don't be against high-speed rail; it's coming to America," he told a group of airline executives in March. "This is the president's vision, this is the vice president's vision, this is America's vision."

"People are still going to fly," he added, "but we need alternatives. So get with the program."

The CRC for Rail Innovation's report into the adoption of HSR in Australia recognises that HSR and air travel are complimentary and should be integrated.  This is what is happening in Europe with both Air France and KLM entering the HSR business.

[#Metro]

I'd be putting the cost of this thing Sydney-Canberra at around $35 billion to construct, though if someone has real world information on costs/km, that would be helpful. This is based on costs of 160 million/km, probably a gross under estimation, but I would be surprised if HSR technology costs of construction were lower than that to construct a low speed QR Citytrain line.

I'll also assume 23 kWh in electricity is used in the trip one way.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/exex_summary.aspx#ex8

Now how often should the trains run? Twice a day or once per hour or more frequently?

$35 billion could go a long way being spent on PT in all the states and territories. The Sydney-Canberra route may (or may not) have merit compared to the alternatives (new airports/airplanes). Haven't seen the business case for it- so still not 100% convinced. It seems very expensive and a long time before the first train would go through, both of which would be penalised when looking at the proposal.

Brisbane up the north coast may have merit. Current tilt train is far too slow, and there are lots places along the coast which is good for hop-on, hop-off travel. Main competition would be the Greyhound buses and similar operators.

[O_128]

Tramtrain at the very least 1 train an hour, I dont think we are going to spend 35billion for 2 trains an hour, also 2 or 4 tracks, should we include dedicated freight lines, where do you put stations, etc,etc

Most of this 35 billion will come from having to tunnel under canberra.

also whil they are at it  may aswell put a commuter rail line in Canberra along the HSR alignment

[#Metro]

also while they are at it  may as well put a commuter rail line in Canberra along the HSR alignment

Strongly agree. Canberra should start looking at future places for normal commuter railway lines and potential busway.

[ButFli]

Considering there are already 3 round trips a day between Sydney and Canberra I would hope that an HSR service could manage more than two.

I think also worth looking at is better rail service over the Blue Mountains as far as Orange or Dubbo. One XPT per day with a shitty timetable just doesn't cut it.

[frereOP]

I'd be putting the cost of this thing Sydney-Canberra at around $35 billion to construct, though if someone has real world information on costs/km, that would be helpful. This is based on costs of 160 million/km, probably a gross under estimation, but I would be surprised if HSR technology costs of construction were lower than that to construct a low speed QR Citytrain line.

The CRC for Rail Innovation puts construction costs of HSR in Europe at between €12-30 million (AUD19-48 Million) per km.  Their report makes a great read and is almost a Business case.  See my post above for the download address.  The Greens have latched onto this figure and incorporated it into their policy for HSR between Canberra and Sydney.

[#Metro]

The CRC for Rail Innovation puts construction costs of HSR in Europe at between €12-30 million (AUD19-48 Million) per km.  Their report makes a great read and is almost a Business case.  See my post above for the download address.  The Greens have latched onto this figure and incorporated it into their policy for HSR between Canberra and Sydney.

I think the report is deficient.
I can't see costs compared with benefits or timeframes. Clearly there would be demand as people fly currently, and people do catch the tilt train and the XPT to sydney (heavily subsidised I suspect). A HSR would be faster, and faster speed means more passengers and lower operating costs in general, compared to buses.

But what I want to know is whether these benefits would be enough to be better than the present situation. I find the estimated costs for HSR construction a bit unbelievable, as Brisbane railway is something like 100-200 million for each kilometer, and HSR track estimates are 10x lower than this. Indeed, 20 million to 40 million per kilometre sounds more like the costs for a light rail system, not HSR.

It has merit, and I like the idea, but I'm not 100% convinced at this stage.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Bullseye for the bullet

[O_128]

The CRC for Rail Innovation puts construction costs of HSR in Europe at between €12-30 million (AUD19-48 Million) per km.  Their report makes a great read and is almost a Business case.  See my post above for the download address.  The Greens have latched onto this figure and incorporated it into their policy for HSR between Canberra and Sydney.

I think the report is deficient.
I can't see costs compared with benefits or timeframes. Clearly there would be demand as people fly currently, and people do catch the tilt train and the XPT to sydney (heavily subsidised I suspect). A HSR would be faster, and faster speed means more passengers and lower operating costs in general, compared to buses.

But what I want to know is whether these benefits would be enough to be better than the present situation. I find the estimated costs for HSR construction a bit unbelievable, as Brisbane railway is something like 100-200 million for each kilometer, and HSR track estimates are 10x lower than this. Indeed, 20 million to 40 million per kilometre sounds more like the costs for a light rail system, not HSR.

It has merit, and I like the idea, but I'm not 100% convinced at this stage.

Heck in china high speed rail only cost 10m a kilometer, Id say it has something to do with the economies of scale

[#Metro]

10 million/km is even lower than light rail or tram tracks!
Heavy rail in Perth is cheap per km, but I would expect HSR to be more expensive as the requirements might be more stringent than normal heavy rail.

Australia also does not have a developed HSR industry, so any initial lines are going to come at a great cost, at least in the beginning. The report is almost a business case but falls short. There have been studies galore as well.

I am very skeptical of this plan. Canberra-Sydney or whatever is the most likely to be viable needs to be looked into first.
I would rather billions be spent on upgrading commuter rail infrastructure at home.

The railway will also not work properly if a proper feeder bus network of public and commercial buses do not feed it. The Canberra railway station is very far from the main city, located in a whoop-whoop industrial area, that situation needs to be fixed up too.

[O_128]

10 million/km is even lower than light rail or tram tracks!
Heavy rail in Perth is cheap per km, but I would expect HSR to be more expensive as the requirements might be more stringent than normal heavy rail.

Australia also does not have a developed HSR industry, so any initial lines are going to come at a great cost, at least in the beginning. The report is almost a business case but falls short. There have been studies galore as well.

I am very skeptical of this plan. Canberra-Sydney or whatever is the most likely to be viable needs to be looked into first.
I would rather billions be spent on upgrading commuter rail infrastructure at home.

The railway will also not work properly if a proper feeder bus network of public and commercial buses do not feed it. The Canberra railway station is very far from the main city, located in a whoop-whoop industrial area, that situation needs to be fixed up too.

A new station would most likely be built in inner Canberra, also I would expect that the work would be hopefully be contracted out to a Japanese or European firm with experience in building HSR,

On another note where would you put stations in Brisbane and where would you put the line? Id like to see a Airport station, Roma street, (maybe via CRR), then dedicated line to sydney, with stations at Gold coast, byron, ballina, coffs harbor, etc

[#Metro]

On another note where would you put stations in Brisbane and where would you put the line? Id like to see a Airport station, Roma street, (maybe via CRR), then dedicated line to sydney, with stations at Gold coast, byron, ballina, coffs harbor, etc

Good question!

I don't think much about a Brisbane-Sydney connection, and I think it is getting far to ahead of things. The Sydney-Canberra route (or whichever is the most viable one) should be built first as a trial and then looked at before anything else happens.

If anything, the tilt train should be turned into HSR. All the way up to Cairns. I've caught the tilt train before, and it is slow, slow, slow, painfully slow.
A lot of tourists catch trains in Europe, I think the same could happen for a Brisbane-Cairns route. The bus companies might not like it though.
The higher speed might also mean less subsidy per passenger, which at last recall was something obscene like $900 per passenger.

[ButFli]

Heck in china high speed rail only cost 10m a kilometer, Id say it has something to do with the economies of scale

Yeah. In China they have the nasty habit of paying their workers bugger all, making them work insane hours and not caring about their workers health and safety. They don't pay to resume land, either.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd prefer we didn't build things the way they do in China.

[colinw]

It always amuses (and somewhat disgusts) me when someone says "we're doing it wrong, because <insert name of dictatorship or 3rd world hellhole> can do it for a fraction of the price".

Would the people who say these things want to live in such a place and work within their rules?

[WTN]

Yeah. In China they have the nasty habit of paying their workers bugger all, making them work insane hours and not caring about their workers health and safety. They don't pay to resume land, either.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd prefer we didn't build things the way they do in China.

I wouldn't want the build quality of some of the products either. Cutting corners and expertise is not the way to go.

[ButFli]

Yeah. In China they have the nasty habit of paying their workers bugger all, making them work insane hours and not caring about their workers health and safety. They don't pay to resume land, either.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd prefer we didn't build things the way they do in China.

I wouldn't want the build quality of some of the products either. Cutting corners and expertise is not the way to go.

That's racist!

[WTN]

Yeah. In China they have the nasty habit of paying their workers bugger all, making them work insane hours and not caring about their workers health and safety. They don't pay to resume land, either.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd prefer we didn't build things the way they do in China.

I wouldn't want the build quality of some of the products either. Cutting corners and expertise is not the way to go.

That's racist!

It's not racist, it's sometimes true. I'm not saying all their products are bad, but when their workers/companies are left on their own, without proper expertise, who knows what can happen. An engineer friend of mine has seen some of their "own brand" products and is shocked at how poor and dangerous they can be. And yes, he's Chinese (living in Aus), but he knows some companies don't care about safety.

Then again, HSR is a bit different because there is often expertise and equipment imported from other countries, which alleviates some safety issues.

[#Metro]

An article about China's growing railway empire.

Left standing by China's bullet trains
The building of Sydney's new trains is a sideshow on the Chinese factory floor, writes John Garnaut in Changchun.

Three years ago China had planned to lay 13,000 kilometres of high-speed railway by 2020, which would be more than the rest of the world combined.

Then the global financial crisis intruded and Beijing brought that 2020 deadline forward by eight years, while redefining ''high speed'' to mostly mean faster than 350 km/h, rather than 250.

China's bullet train project is as ambitious and potentially nation-changing as the 19th century railways that opened up the US.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/left-standing-by-chinas-bullet-trains-20100825-13s97.html

[ozbob]

Congestion $10 billion dollars,  road trauma around $40 billion! ... it is a no brainer why we need to move in these directions, but first we need to support our local mass transit.  See Road trauma is breaking the nation

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Plan to travel from Melbourne to Brisbane - with a bullet

Plan to travel from Melbourne to Brisbane - with a bullet
September 18, 2010

The Freccia Rossa high speed train of Italian company Trenitalia will reduce the travel time from Milan to Rome to three-hour and a half to three-hour.

A high-speed train running at 350km/h between Melbourne and Brisbane is back on the political agenda with the government and opposition supporting a landmark study that calls for action to preserve land corridors to ''future proof'' the economics of the project.

The study, obtained exclusively by Fairfax Media's  The Age, argues that, at these speeds, high-speed rail becomes competitive with air travel.

The issue of a high-speed train has recently been resurrected by all sides of politics as a potential solution to Australia's crippling road congestion, which costs the country $10 billion a year. Australia's population is expected to increase to 26.7 million by 2026 and 36 million by 2056, and there is a need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The study was released jointly by AECOM, one of the world's experts on modelling fast trains for governments, and Australia's peak infrastructure lobby group, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (IPA).

It urges the government to identify new routes and either buy the land or put in planning protections to ensure future land price increases do not make a high-speed rail network a prohibitive option.

It mentions that such a rail project would have a big impact on the taxi, airline and airport industries.

The government and opposition threw their support behind the report yesterday, and reconfirmed that a $20 million scoping study would be put out for tender.

Modelling by AECOM/IPA indicates the land corridor is worth $13.7 billion at today's prices but will balloon to $57 billion by 2030. "Failure to protect these corridors now will increase their cost in the future and could put a complete network out of Australia's financial capacity," the report warns.

Proposals to build a high-speed rail have been under consideration by the private sector since the mid-1980s. To date, no proposal has proven commercially viable.

This report outlines an indicative corridor where the stations would be, but suggests that engineering studies would be required to determine the exact location of the new routes.

It recommends the corridor be built incrementally and shared with different types of infrastructure such as water, electricity and the national broadband network to make it financially viable and strategic.

"Travelling between Sydney and Melbourne - currently the third busiest air corridor in the world - could be reduced to less than three hours,'' says the report.

High-speed rail is being rolled out in countries across Europe, the US and Asia as a way to link up major cities, reduce congestion and battle pollution. France, Spain, Japan, Taiwan, Britain and Portugal are just a few of the countries with high-speed rail. China and Germany have high-speed rails under construction.

A key recommendation of the report is that the construction phase begins in five years on an incremental basis, starting with Sydney to Newcastle or Canberra, on the basis that it avoids the $15 billion cost of developing a new airport to service Sydney.

Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese said the study was a valuable contribution, particularly its emphasis on preserving infrastructure corridors, which was consistent with the government's strategic planning approach.

"Federal Labor is investing $20 million on the high-speed rail study for the eastern seaboard," he said. "This builds on federal Labor's record investment in rail during its first term, which saw a tenfold increase in rail compared to the former coalition government."

Shadow finance minister Andrew Robb said yesterday the study hit the nail on the head in terms of the need to consider and resolve the role of high-speed rail.

"Australia must avoid the mistakes of the past, where insufficient long-term planning saw the loss of land that should have been protected for rail and road projects, which has meant that expensive and complex tunnelling has been the only option to get critical projects delivered," he said.

The report forecasts an 86 per cent chance that Australia will need a very fast train by 2030, rising to 93 per cent by 2050.

The east coast of Australia accounts for most of the country's GDP, 75 per cent of employment and 63 per cent of economic activity and houses 60 per cent of the population, as well as bearing most of the national congestion concerns.

IPA chairman Mark Birrell, who is also a director of the Government's Infrastructure Australia, said Australia had been down the path of very fast trains before but had got nowhere because planning had not translated into action. "This time Australia needs to settle on and protect an alignment and begin to incrementally deliver an east coast fast-rail network."

"Even though it is a long-term project, we need to start in-depth planning and protect the corridors to ensure the network remains an economically viable option for the future.''

AECOM has been involved in some of the more high-profile high-speed rail projects globally, including France's TGV and Britain's HS2 project.

[ozbob]

Infrastructure Partnerships Australia

East Coast High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors
A realistic pathway to very fast trains

--> IPA AECOM VFT Report September 2010

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> 400km/h and counting: on board the world's fastest train

[johnnigh]

Late Night Live, Tuesday evening, available on the web at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2010/3018184.htm

Paul Mees points out that Albanese's promise of a $20m feasibility study will be study #10 for a VFT on the east coast.

For uncritical enthusiasts for an Australian VFT this panel discussion is a blast of cold, clear air.

Unsurprisingly, there are other priorities for rail, especially freight rail outside of capital city PT rail. Even protecting potential corridor might be problematic as it, too, has major opportunity costs.

Sure, a VFT is really sexy, but we may do a lot better with less sexy but still major improvements to our freight backbones, which are currently a shambles of ancient easements that limit speeds, train capacities and gate-to-gate delivery times, gauge changes and tiny tunnels that can't take double deck containers.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

High speed rail network 'unviable'

High speed rail network 'unviable'
September 28, 2010

A high-speed rail network linking Australia's major cities isn't viable because they are too far apart or don't have the population to justify the cost, departmental documents show.

Labor announced during the August election campaign that, if re-elected, it would initiate a $20 million feasibility study for a high-speed rail network linking Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne, with a particular focus on the Sydney-Newcastle leg.

But a document obtained under a freedom of information (FOI) request showed Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese was told in March the plan was not viable.

"Australian cities are not predisposed to high-speed rail linkages," said the document, entitled A Profile of High-speed Railways.

"A high-speed Sydney-Melbourne railway with an average train speed of 250 kilometres an hour would mean a journey of three hours, which is the upper time limit for the train to be competitive with airlines.

"This analysis highlights that currently in Australia high-speed rail will not be viable."

A high-speed rail network would require a minimum of six million travellers a year to be viable, but the briefing said 12 million to 20 million commuters were more typical.

The document, which was given to Seven Network News following a FOI request, showed while a Sydney-Newcastle-Canberra link would compete with the airline's travel time, the cities did not have the populations to justify the link.

However, the paper also said the potential future viability of high-speed rail lines would be improved by a strategy of safeguarding future corridors and by applying policies to increase the size and density of key population centres.

"We know that there's massive public support for high-speed rail," Mr Albanese told Seven Network yesterday.

"But we need to know what the cost is and what the challenges are."

In its TV news report, Seven said further documents showed the scheme would cost up to $110 million a kilometre to build, and that the FOI request was only granted after the intervention of Mr Albanese.

AAP

[ozbob]

From  http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4247.msg34289#msg34289

========

Sent to all outlets:

18th September 2010

Greetings,

Interesting article in the Fairfax media today (below).   Congestion at $10 billion dollars annually seems to be the driver for a fast rail dream.  This country is struggling to sort out its suburban/interurban systems, but good we can dream ...  The cost of road trauma is around $40 billion dollars annually and rising quickly, a much more urgent factor in driving proper utilisation of our existing and future plans for rail for passenger and freight than fast rail idolisations.

The lack of public acknowledgement of the real costs of road trauma is probably a reflection of the reluctance to rock the road lobby boat.  Very sad situation.  See Road trauma is breaking the nation http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?action=articles;sa=view;article=3

Congestion $10 billion dollars,  road trauma around $40 billion! ... it is a no-brainer why we need to move in these directions, but first we need to support our local mass transit.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration RAIL Back On Track
admin@backontrack.org

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/plan-to-travel-from-melbourne-to-brisbane--with-a-bullet-20100917-15gi6.html

Plan to travel from Melbourne to Brisbane - with a bullet

Quote
lan to travel from Melbourne to Brisbane - with a bullet
September 18, 2010

The Freccia Rossa high speed train of Italian company Trenitalia will reduce the travel time from Milan to Rome to three-hour and a half to three-hour.

A high-speed train running at 350km/h between Melbourne and Brisbane is back on the political agenda with the government and opposition supporting a landmark study that calls for action to preserve land corridors to ''future proof'' the economics of the project.

The study, obtained exclusively by Fairfax Media's  The Age, argues that, at these speeds, high-speed rail becomes competitive with air travel.

The issue of a high-speed train has recently been resurrected by all sides of politics as a potential solution to Australia's crippling road congestion, which costs the country $10 billion a year. Australia's population is expected to increase to 26.7 million by 2026 and 36 million by 2056, and there is a need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The study was released jointly by AECOM, one of the world's experts on modelling fast trains for governments, and Australia's peak infrastructure lobby group, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (IPA).

It urges the government to identify new routes and either buy the land or put in planning protections to ensure future land price increases do not make a high-speed rail network a prohibitive option.

It mentions that such a rail project would have a big impact on the taxi, airline and airport industries.

The government and opposition threw their support behind the report yesterday, and reconfirmed that a $20 million scoping study would be put out for tender.

Modelling by AECOM/IPA indicates the land corridor is worth $13.7 billion at today's prices but will balloon to $57 billion by 2030. "Failure to protect these corridors now will increase their cost in the future and could put a complete network out of Australia's financial capacity," the report warns.

Proposals to build a high-speed rail have been under consideration by the private sector since the mid-1980s. To date, no proposal has proven commercially viable.

This report outlines an indicative corridor where the stations would be, but suggests that engineering studies would be required to determine the exact location of the new routes.

It recommends the corridor be built incrementally and shared with different types of infrastructure such as water, electricity and the national broadband network to make it financially viable and strategic.

"Travelling between Sydney and Melbourne - currently the third busiest air corridor in the world - could be reduced to less than three hours,'' says the report.

High-speed rail is being rolled out in countries across Europe, the US and Asia as a way to link up major cities, reduce congestion and battle pollution. France, Spain, Japan, Taiwan, Britain and Portugal are just a few of the countries with high-speed rail. China and Germany have high-speed rails under construction.

A key recommendation of the report is that the construction phase begins in five years on an incremental basis, starting with Sydney to Newcastle or Canberra, on the basis that it avoids the $15 billion cost of developing a new airport to service Sydney.

Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese said the study was a valuable contribution, particularly its emphasis on preserving infrastructure corridors, which was consistent with the government's strategic planning approach.

"Federal Labor is investing $20 million on the high-speed rail study for the eastern seaboard," he said. "This builds on federal Labor's record investment in rail during its first term, which saw a tenfold increase in rail compared to the former coalition government."

Shadow finance minister Andrew Robb said yesterday the study hit the nail on the head in terms of the need to consider and resolve the role of high-speed rail.

"Australia must avoid the mistakes of the past, where insufficient long-term planning saw the loss of land that should have been protected for rail and road projects, which has meant that expensive and complex tunnelling has been the only option to get critical projects delivered," he said.

The report forecasts an 86 per cent chance that Australia will need a very fast train by 2030, rising to 93 per cent by 2050.

The east coast of Australia accounts for most of the country's GDP, 75 per cent of employment and 63 per cent of economic activity and houses 60 per cent of the population, as well as bearing most of the national congestion concerns.

IPA chairman Mark Birrell, who is also a director of the Government's Infrastructure Australia, said Australia had been down the path of very fast trains before but had got nowhere because planning had not translated into action. "This time Australia needs to settle on and protect an alignment and begin to incrementally deliver an east coast fast-rail network."

"Even though it is a long-term project, we need to start in-depth planning and protect the corridors to ensure the network remains an economically viable option for the future.''

AECOM has been involved in some of the more high-profile high-speed rail projects globally, including France's TGV and Britain's HS2 project.

[shiftyphil]

Article today in Business Spectator (I think you may have to sign up to a free trial to see it though).
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Is-Albanese-off-the-rails-pd20100929-9QT2P?OpenDocument&src=kgb

Arguing that there aren't enough people in Newcastle or Gosford to justify a high-speed rail link to Sydney is like arguing that there was no point building Canberra, because there were no politicians there.

...

The Department of Transport report to Albanese in March, he says, is a "fairly normal response" typical of "anti-rail professionals".

[WTN]

I think it is a bit short sighted to say HSR is not viable because Sydney-Melbourne bordering the 3hr mark, or because populations of Canberra or Newcastle aren't big enough. There's the benefit to allow commutes from regional towns to the capitals. Even Canberra-Sydney could see commuters going both ways!

As well as road trauma, consider how much money will be spent over the years on maintaining and upgrading the Hume, Princess, Pacific, New-England and Sydney-Newcastle highways. Or the cost of future airports when current ones reach capacity.

[frereOP]

As well as road trauma, consider how much money will be spent over the years on maintaining and upgrading the Hume, Princess, Pacific, New-England and Sydney-Newcastle highways. Or the cost of future airports when current ones reach capacity.

That's exactly right. Economic rationalists will focus on the cost of building (and running!) it compared to the revenue it could raise.  Like all infrastructure, it's the deferred cost to the nation of not building it that is equally important.  Ultimately SOMEONE will have to pay be it the taxpayers who subsidise an unprofitable train service, or the taxpayers and individuals who subsidise the cost of everything else for not building it (road maintenance, traffic congestion, road trauma, carbon emissions etc etc etc).

Lets hope politicians don't derail this to a crass political debate over cost of building and runnig it like they have with the National Broadband Network, and focus more on the costs to the nation of NOT building it

[#Metro]

Does anyone have Australian data on freeway and tunnel construction? Like how much/km to construct and maintainence of the asset and the asset life?

[Golliwog]

Gateway bridge duplication was built to last ages, like 100-200 years or something. Forget the cost though.

[Stillwater]

Population is the key driver of VFT viability.  Brisbane-Cairns does not have to population base, but may over time.  However, think of all the bridges and viaducts needed ($$$).  Revitalisation of the VFT concept Sydney-Canberra is driven by the fact that a second Sydney Airport (if room could be found for one) would cost $17 billion, making attractive the prospect of Canberra or Newcastle serving the 'second Sydney airport' function.  However, Canberra is Australia's most fog-bound major airport.  A VFT terminus tentatively is planned for Canberra Airport.  International planes would land there and people would transfer to the VFT to Sydney.  Earlier costings of a VFT between Sydney and Canberra were based on 80 per cent of people currently flying between both cities transferring to rail.  This was too high.  As for a high-speed rail line through Canberra being used by suburban rail, this is unlikely as Canberra already has a very good bus network with high frequency between major town centres http://www.action.act.gov.au/Routes_25_May/Intertown_300.html   Also, light rail is being discussed.  A light rail route was planned when Canberra was laid out and the corridor exists for much of the proposed route.

[#Metro]

Canberra's public transport is a low-frequency. The buses are ancient.
The intertown is OK but has confusing routes and different numbers. Light Rail would be good as a trunk replacement of the intertown, but I think they will be given buses in the short term and busways (a la Brisbane) in the longer term, just as with Cairns.

As for a high-speed rail line through Canberra being used by suburban rail, this is unlikely as Canberra already has a very good bus network with high frequency between major town centres http://www.action.act.gov.au/Routes_25_May/Intertown_300.html   Also, light rail is being discussed.  A light rail route was planned when Canberra was laid out and the corridor exists for much of the proposed route.

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/09/canberra-they-only-refer-to-buses.html

Actually, I'm being paid (and modestly) by a department that's trying to plot a rational course into a sustainable transport future, for a city of 345,000 people who live mostly at low densities with an abundant road network.  The transit system is not yet at a scale or intensity where it needs the capacity that light rail would offer, nor is there much near-term prospect of funding for it.  Light rail could happen, and I certainly don't oppose it, but as I said over and over in Canberra's Strategic Plan process, if you wait for light rail, you will miss a lot of other opportunities to improve transit mobility, and to encourage more transit-friendly urban form.

Which makes me think: What about Brisbane. When you have 12 400 people/hour in peak concentrated on a busway corridor, is that enough scale and intensity to convert over to Light Rail? Or is this the carrot on a string that always seems to just move further away when you reach for it...

[#Metro]

Oh, they are more devious in taking politics to new heights in NSW.  In 1995, the NSW Government imported a Tilt Train from Sweden and spent a lot of money modifying station platforms to run it all over the state, telling people this would be the next generation of train intruduced in inter-regional runs.  The train came and went, as did the election, but no Tilt Train eventuated in NSW.  Clapped-out XPTs still operating there.  Credit where credit is due - at least Queensland took the Tilt Train plunge.  Go here if you want to know more about the ill-fated NSW Tilt Train experiment: http://www.tomw.net.au/atmttrn1.html

I've read the link given by Stillwater. At the bottom is something interesting:

With the track upgraded, it is estimated the Tilt Train would take 2 hours Canberra to Sydney. By air it is about 45 minutes, but with travel time from Sydney airport to the city and more time in boarding and disembarking the train would be competitive. Also it is much more comfortable and you can work in transit.

Is the HSR Sydney-Canberra really required? Would an improved tilt service do?

[ButFli]

With the track upgraded, it is estimated the Tilt Train would take 2 hours Canberra to Sydney. By air it is about 45 minutes, but with travel time from Sydney airport to the city and more time in boarding and disembarking the train would be competitive. Also it is much more comfortable and you can work in transit.

Is the HSR Sydney-Canberra really required? Would an improved tilt service do?

The key point being "with the track upgraded". 2 hours Sydney to Canberra is a touch over 160km/h average speed. Apart from those really straight stretches across the Nullabor there is no track in Australia that could support that sort of sustained speed. Let alone that windy section from Sydney to Canberra, let alone having to spend a quarter of the journey fighting through the Sydney suburban network. I think it's a bit misleading to say it could be done "with the track upgraded".

The XPT could do it "with the track upgraded" if the upgrade is a totally new alignment that is dead-straight and grade-separated from everything.

[frereOP]

With the track upgraded, it is estimated the Tilt Train would take 2 hours Canberra to Sydney. By air it is about 45 minutes, but with travel time from Sydney airport to the city and more time in boarding and disembarking the train would be competitive. Also it is much more comfortable and you can work in transit.

Is the HSR Sydney-Canberra really required? Would an improved tilt service do?

The key point being "with the track upgraded". 2 hours Sydney to Canberra is a touch over 160km/h average speed. Apart from those really straight stretches across the Nullabor there is no track in Australia that could support that sort of sustained speed. Let alone that windy section from Sydney to Canberra, let alone having to spend a quarter of the journey fighting through the Sydney suburban network. I think it's a bit misleading to say it could be done "with the track upgraded".

The XPT could do it "with the track upgraded" if the upgrade is a totally new alignment that is dead-straight and grade-separated from everything.

I suggest you read the IPA AECOM VFT Report September 2010

and

the CRC for Rail Innovation's High Speed Rail: Strategic Information for the Australian Context Research Report.

Both these documents explain why this is not a viable option.