High Speed and Fast Rail

[Stillwater]

A High-Speed Train for Australia would involve a great chunk of private money, so market forces would apply when considering its commercial viability.  I have never heard a more ridiculous argument than the one that says billions of dollars in mythical savings made by not building an imaginary fast train could be better spent on government owned and operated railway lines. 

[somebody]

A High-Speed Train for Australia would involve a great chunk of private money, so market forces would apply when considering its commercial viability. 

Given that this hasn't happened should tell you something.  I remember VFT mark I did attract some proposals for private investment, but I think once changes to the tax rules and property speculation had been ruled out, this quickly evaporated.

[Fares_Fair]

At around $108 Billion dollars, pigs may fly first.
I think we simply do not have the population to viably support any venture of this magnitude.

However, the Future fund, with around $70-80 billion last I heard (created primarily to protect guaranteed super entitlements of public servants and politicians) shows what can be saved when the will to do so is there.

[SurfRail]

It certainly can be built, but I have no doubt money should be spent on freight and metropolitan systems first.

[ozbob]

At around $108 Billion dollars, pigs may fly first.
I think we simply do not have the population to viably support any venture of this magnitude.

However, the Future fund, with around $70-80 billion last I heard (created primarily to protect guaranteed super entitlements of public servants and politicians) shows what can be saved when the will to do so is there.

Didn't Rudd raid the Future Fund?

http://www.futurefund.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/4661/16853_FF_2011_AR_WEB_A212093.pdf

$75 Billion last June.

[Stillwater]

If any private sector group was interested in HSR in Australia, it would rely on the compulsory land acquisition powers of governments to buy up the land needed for a rail corridor -- a huge ask.  The project does not get off the ground without that commitment.

The expectation would be that the private sector would not put a cent towards the land purchases, so this up-front land component would be a government responsibility.  It would cost millions we don't have.

The private operator would want some sort of lease-back arrangement, funded by the revenue stream from the HST fares.  It could build the track on the alignment the government had purchased, or the expectation could be governments build the track, with the private sector handling 'above rail' operations.

The interesting bit is if the operator goes bust.  Where does that leave governments, which will have land and track, also the debt to pay off, and no revenue.  All in all, a hugh potential cost for government towards a 'private' railway.

[ozbob]

From Transport and Logistics News click here!

Research to allow freight trains to run at 200 km/h

Research to allow freight trains to run at 200 km/h

Anyone who has travelled on trains in Europe or Japan rocketing along in silence and comfort wonders why Australian train continue to trundle at 1940s speeds.

It's not the train or even the lines, but the rocky foundations (or ballast) on which the rails are laid, and results in strict speed limits for trains.

The problem is these fist-sized rocks move when trains pass over them. It's a grinding motion which causes the ballast to spread out and disintegrate. This makes the lines unstable and in severe examples can lead to derailments.

In NSW alone, maintaining the ballast is a $15 million annual cost.

Khaja Syed from the University of Wollongong says that about ten years ago engineers identified a solution. This was to place a plastic mesh ('geogrid') underneath the rocks to hold the ballast in place.

"Now we are refining and improving this process," he says. "My work is testing the best place to place the mesh, and the best size of the holes in the mesh."

Putting the right type of plastic mesh reinforcement within the rocks, and in the right place, can dramatically increase railway safety and reduce costs.

"Currently, the average speed of freight trains in Australia is about 80 kilometres per hour. Normal rail track can't cater for speeds approaching 200 kilometres per hour, which Australia needs for high-speed, heavy freight trains," says Mr Syed.

There are many types of geogrids available, and each state has different requirements for the ballast used in their railways. "We need to know what the best geogrid is for each location and each type of ballast," says Mr Syed.

Previous research only took one measure of how much the ballast sideways moved under load, but Mr Syed developed an innovative apparatus to measure sideways spread through all layers of the ballast.

His research is supervised by Professor Buddhima Indraratna, an internationally renowned expert in rail track technology.

"By upgrading to high-speed freight trains, we can improve the efficiency of transport for sectors such as agriculture and mining," says Prof. Indraratna. "That also makes transport more resilient and cheaper in the future."

"Everywhere else in the world people talk about speeds exceeding 300 kilometres per hour when they talk about high-speed rail, but our current maximum speeds are just over 150 kilometres per hour."

Prof. Indraratna's team, of which Mr Syed is a part, are some of the only researchers in Australia looking at high-speed rail tracks instead of just super-charged engines or locomotives.

"We need this research," he says. "It's like having the fastest Porsche without the road to run it on."

Mr Syed is researching for the Cooperative Research Centre for Rail Innovation (Rail CRC) through the University of Wollongong.

[ozbob]

More likely to see light rail up Queen St Goodna before true high speed rail in the land down under ...

There are massive investments needed in urban rail and progressive upgrades of the freight network, this will be the game for a while. This will become even more pressing as fuel and road costs continue to escalate.  The second rail revolution  is just around the corner.  Freight will be quicker and the article preceeding this post gives a clue as to the directions.

[colinw]

Sydney - Melbourne in under 3 hours?  This should do it.  300 km/h is so 1980s!

Railway Gazette International -> Experimental 430 km/h high speed train unveiled

18 May 2012

SOUTH KOREA: An experimental high speed train designed for speeds up to 430 km/h was unveiled on May 17.

The HEMU-430X (High Speed Electric Multiple-Unit 430 km/h eXperimental) has been developed with the aim of putting South Korea's major cities within 1½ h of each other, and to attract export orders for Korean technology.

The Ministry of Land, Transport & Maritime Affairs has supported Korea Railroad Research Institute and Hyundai Rotem during the 93·1bn won five-year project to develop the trainset, which uses technology from around 50 Korean organisations.

The latest aerodynamic analysis has been used to produce a front end with 10% less resistance at 300 km/h than previous Korean high speed trains, with an appearance which is intended to be distinctively Korean.

Distributed traction allows the train to provide 16% more seats than KTX-Sancheon trainsets, and high acceleration enables it to reach 300 km/h in 233 sec.

The use of high-strength aluminium extrusions offers a 5% weight reduction compared to KTX-Sancheon, and the body has improved sound insulation. The passenger environment is designed to be 'contemporary, comfortable and spacious'.

The experimental trainset will be based at Busan for trial running which is expected to total 100 000 km at speeds up to 430 km/h by 2015.

[SurfRail]

Probably like Airtrain, if it goes broke its handed over. So this means the feds could end of with a HSR, that looses money, maybe lots of money. However following the part failure and losses of similar but samller projects in Australia over last 10 years. There is zero chance of getting private investment of this type. ie Airtrain, Sydney Airtrain, NT Railway, 'insert name of any road tunnel here'

I'm afraid I don't agree.  Those projects (especially the road projects) depended on seriously shonky numbers.  GoldlinQ has attracted private equity for Gold Coast Rapid Transit even after those failures, and I think there is an important role for private funding to play as long as the economics of a project are good and subjected to some serious rigor.  Even back before sods were ever turned, serious questions were being asked about the viability of the Clem 7 and Airport Link projects (including on this forum).

Airtrain is profitable now, and the Sydney one was delivered poorly.

Keeping in mind that land concessions and various government guarantees were pretty much the only reason railways extended across the American plains towards the west coast, notwithstanding they were private concerns. 

I think the only way we are going to get anywhere is to slightly increase our tax take and funnel it entirely into a proper national infrastructure fund so it gets reliable revenue of around $10bn per annum over a few decades.  Don't know the best way to go about doing that, but the productivity gains we would end up with should largely pay for the financial impost over time.

Obviously that funding should be spent on things like fixing the intra- and interstate freight network, metropolitan PT systems, fixing national highways, upgrading ports, funding universities properly etc, before big centrepiece projects like a VFT which need huge capital outlays which can't be repaid quickly.

[ozbob]

From the interpreter click here!

Trains: China and Australia compared

Trains: China and Australia compared

by Fergus Hanson - 22 May 2012 10:01AM

I visited Hangzhou recently for a summit about ediplomacy, and got to experience China's high-speed rail system first-hand.

I'm no train geek, but you couldn't help but be impressed. The photo below is of the ticket counter in Hangzhou – I walked in and my heart sank. There were 30 lines and each was at least 20-deep (yes, I counted). Six hundred people in line before me – how long would this take? From a long and tortured experience of train travel in Australia, I was anticipating a very, very long time.

Well, as it happens, I timed it. Exactly six minutes. And for the pleasure of travelling at 300km/h in 45 minutes to Shanghai on a train that kept Swiss-time, it cost $11.65.

For anyone who has done the Sydney to Canberra commute (or, here in the US, the Washington-New York route), it's enough to make you cry.

[colinw]

The Courier-Mail -> Slow end to fast-train project

[Fares_Fair]

Article: Slow end to fast-train project
by Peter Quick
The Courier-Mail
June 05, 2012 12:00AM

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/slow-end-to-fast-train-project/story-fn6ck620-1226383947059

FEDERAL Transport Minister Anthony Albanese is an energetic politician.
When he's not dragging a reluctant Peter Slipper to the Speaker's chair, he's busy planning a futuristic railway to whisk travellers from Brisbane to Melbourne at speeds of up to 350km/h.

Late last year the minister confirmed the second and final stage of a high-speed rail study was under way. The first part of the study was completed last July and proposed a hi-tech Very Fast Train (VFT) linking Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne.

The study's second part, examining economic and financial viability, is due to be completed later this year.

This project has form. In the early 1980s, the CSIRO promoted a similar project based on French TGV technology. The idea was taken up by an Australian corporate consortium including TNT, Elders IXL and even BHP. It rumbled on interminably, championed by the Hawke government with the Victorian, ACT, NSW and Queensland governments cheering on the sidelines.

After countless studies and special committees, the project eventually fell over in 1991, allegedly because the federal government wouldn't wear the substantial tax concessions demanded by the consortium.

Economic rationality ruled.

Throughout the 1990s similar projects resurfaced several times, sponsored by either state or federal governments, aided and abetted by vested private-sector interests.

The most significant of these was a proposal for a VFT link between Sydney and Canberra with extensions later to Melbourne and Brisbane.

Expressions of interest were called; four international consortiums presented proposals; and a preferred tenderer selected. And the outcome? You've guessed it - the railway required substantial government subsidies so the project folded.

But this cat has more than nine lives and the newly minted Rudd government performed a resuscitation.

The first part of the new study made for interesting reading: Project costs were estimated at $68 billion to $108 billion. Eye-wateringly expensive. Journey times would be three hours between Brisbane and Sydney, with another three hours on to Melbourne. And ticket prices would be competitive with air fares. All good stuff so far.

But the big surprise was that by 2034, passenger numbers were predicted at 54 million.

And that included about half of those who would normally fly between Sydney and Melbourne. How on earth did they arrive at those numbers?

Revenue projections are critical to determine the economic viability of any rail project. It is notoriously difficult to predict ticket prices and passenger numbers for a railway.

Witness the Sydney and Brisbane airport rail links, both in liquidation not long after opening. So I assumed the consultants who prepared this study conducted thorough market research to determine how many passengers would switch from air to rail, maybe using a gaggle of girls with clipboards at airport check-ins.

"Hey darl, would you be willing to take a train from Brisbane to Melbourne at the same price as your air ticket?"

"How long would it take?"

"Only six hours, and you could watch several in-train DVDs on the way."

I know how I would answer.

And are the airlines going to stand by and watch 50 per cent of their passengers switch?

So how did the consultants do the numbers? With esoteric computer models unencumbered by basic common sense.

But all this doesn't count. The report says: "The phase one study is not assessing the justification for a high-speed rail network in terms of financial viability." That's the purpose of the second stage.

Why did the minister spend millions on a report ignoring the fundamental reason for scuppering the previous VFT projects and now commit millions more for the next stage?

Most railway experts will say VFT would be a good bet for travel between relatively close cities.

For example, Paris to Lyon, one of France's prime TGV routes, is 465km apart, about half the distance between Sydney and Melbourne. And London to Paris by Eurostar is closer at 350km.

Australia just doesn't have these demographics. Air travel is the best option for inter-city journeys. We have smallish cities widely separated, similar to the US and Canada, both with well-established domestic air networks and not one VFT.

So, minister, I think you are wasting your energy and our money on this cat. Put it out of its misery now.

- Peter Quick is a Sunshine Coast-based transport consultant and writer.

[#Metro]

For $108 billion we could probably rip up the entire QR network and rebuild it, brand new.

The money would be much better spent diverted to a second Sydney Airport, and core capacity system expansion in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Adelaide and also a high quality 'national railway' akin to the 'national highway' running from North QLD, down through Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth.

[Mr X]

high quality 'national railway' akin to the 'national highway' running from North QLD, down through Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth.

That's what HSR is. A high quality link between major cities which can actually compete in terms of speed against one of it's biggest competitors- flight.

[colinw]

I don't see any future for HSR rail or even the interstate rail network. This country is simply too hung up on short term bandaid fixes, and devoid of any kind of long term vision or strategy beyond being a dirty great mine exporting resources to countries without our level of environmental laws.

As my late mother used to say: "Australian born, Australian bred, long in the leg and thick in the head."

Why is it that so many of the best educated & most employable Aussies HAVE to head OS in order to progress their career. Suspect I'll end up following them, even with the dire problems in Europe there's far more opportunity there (or in places like Dubai) than here.

End of rant. 

[somebody]

For $108 billion we could probably rip up the entire QR network and rebuild it, brand new.

The money would be much better spent diverted to a second Sydney Airport, and core capacity system expansion in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Adelaide and also a high quality 'national railway' akin to the 'national highway' running from North QLD, down through Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth.

I'm inclined to agree with you.  Even the second Sydney Airport and second parallel runway for Brisbane are dubious projects IMO, particularly the former.

Just provide incentives to consolidate flights onto bigger planes and watch the airlines trim those narrow body flights.  I'm sure we haven't reached peak flying yet, but we could in a decade or two.

[#Metro]

Just provide incentives to consolidate flights onto bigger planes and watch the airlines trim those narrow body flights.  I'm sure we haven't reached peak flying yet, but we could in a decade or two.

I actually agree. You could probably double or even triple capacity on those corridors by running the same planes as used on international flights. I still think a second Airport in Sydney is a good idea though. Privately funded of course - if capacity is such an issue, the government's role should be getting the land parcel down.

That's what HSR is. A high quality link between major cities which can actually compete in terms of speed against one of it's biggest competitors- flight.

I disagree with this. Passenger might be useful, but the main focus really should be freight IMHO. I suspect rail freight is competing against shipping in the sea along the eastern seaboard. Go out to somewhere like Springbrook and you can see from byron to brisbane - there you have huge ships at sea, all in a line going up and down the coast.

There's nothing wrong with going overseas. The nation doesn't "own" it's citizens and they should be free to cross borders and live and work overseas just in the same way as we welcome other people to do the same here. We only have what 20 million people. Some cities have all that in 1 city.

[somebody]

I disagree with this. Passenger might be useful, but the main focus really should be freight IMHO. I suspect rail freight is competing against shipping in the sea along the eastern seaboard. Go out to somewhere like Springbrook and you can see from byron to brisbane - there you have huge ships at sea, all in a line going up and down the coast.

There's nothing wrong with going overseas. The nation doesn't "own" it's citizens and they should be free to cross borders and live and work overseas just in the same way as we welcome other people to do the same here. We only have what 20 million people. Some cities have all that in 1 city.

Coastal shipping is dead or nearly dead.  Still exists across Bass Strait of course.

Those ships are surely waiting to carry a load of coal to China.  Or something like that.

[ozbob]

For interest QANTAS (intl) is taking a battering.  Fuel price increases one of the big factors ...


ABC News --> Qantas shares plummet after profit warning

[somebody]

And other airlines around the world are struggling also.  American Airlines entered Chapter 11 (a.k.a. Bankruptcy) a few months ago.

[beauyboy]

Article: Slow end to fast-train project
by Peter Quick
The Courier-Mail
June 05, 2012 12:00AM


For example, Paris to Lyon, one of France's prime TGV routes, is 465km apart, about half the distance between Sydney and Melbourne. And London to Paris by Eurostar is closer at 350km.

Australia just doesn't have these demographics. Air travel is the best option for inter-city journeys. We have smallish cities widely separated, similar to the US and Canada, both with well-established domestic air networks and not one VFT.

So, minister, I think you are wasting your energy and our money on this cat. Put it out of its misery now.

- Peter Quick is a Sunshine Coast-based transport consultant and writer.

Tipical Courier fudging the figures
According to google as the crow flys melbourne to sydney is 710kms that means Paris to Lyon is two thirds no a half it also ignores the fact that TGV does have routes that are up to 700kms long with journey times of around 3 hrs. No wonder I never pay for that paper. It lies and decieves.

Donald

[somebody]

By extension, then a 4.5 hour journey time would be sufficient to compete with air travel?  Highly dubious.

[SurfRail]

HSR will never get from Syd to Mel down to 710km, especially if it goes via Canberra. 875km via the Hume (Google maps)

Paris - Brussels is ~300km and is 90min, so 2.5 times are long = ~4hr

I wouldn't be so sure.

I have little doubt it is technically feasible to get train speeds up to what they need to be to deliver a 3hr travel time Sydney to Brisbane or Sydney to Melbourne, with the new rollingstock and technology becoming available.  The salient problem is how much money would need to be spent creating a good alignment.

Question of cost only, which is why I agree the metropolitan issues need to be fixed first and work should be done on the basis of corridor acquisition and preservation, not imminent construction.

[colinw]

A lot of assertions being made in this thread without considering the current state of the art.

Madrid to Barcelona, 630km and 1 intermediate stop is 2 hours 30 (150 minutes) with the new timetable.  The "slow" train with 5 stops is 2 hours 50 (170 minutes).  That line isn't even best practice - top speed is currently 310km/h although design speed of trains is 360.  The approaches into Madrid & Barcelona, and through Zaragoza, are all limited to 200km/h or slower.

So lets say Sydney to Melbourne ends up 875km by HSR, with similar top speed & number of 160-200 speed restrictions as Madrid to Barcelona.

With 1 intermediate stop (Canberra):
(150 / 630) x 875 = 208.3 minutes, or just under 3 hours 30.

With 4 intermediate stops (say 2nd Sydney Airport near Picton, Goulburn, Canberra, Albury:
(170 / 630) x 875 = 236.1 minutes, or 3 hours 56.

Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne population, and level of air traffic, is a close match for Madrid/Zaragoza/Barcelona before the AVE went in.

Another example: LGV Méditerranée, with a 750km journey to Paris in 3 hours, has taken over two thirds of the air traffic.  Again, extending this 750km in 3 hours baseline to 875km, you get a journey time of 3 hours 30.

I therefore assert that, based on current operations in Europe, a journey time of 3 and a half hours for Sydney - Canberra - Melbourne is achievable.

IMHO people who say (Newcastle - ) Sydney - Canberra - Melbourne wouldn't work as high speed rail are talking through their hat.

Brisbane - Sydney, however, is probably marginal and Adelaide is definitely not on.

The examples above are with operating speeds in the 300km/h to 320km/h range, rather than the 360km/h current state of the art of the 400km/h to 420km/h trains that are on the horizon (see post about the Korean train above).

[somebody]

IMHO people who say (Newcastle - ) Sydney - Canberra - Melbourne wouldn't work as high speed rail are talking through their hat.

Brisbane - Sydney, however, is probably marginal and Adelaide is definitely not on.

How do you define "work"?  I'm sure it will get an amount of patronage if enough money is thrown at it, but it won't be unsubsidised as far as I can see and for SYD-MEL there will still be number of domestic flights, probably still at least hourly for QF for much of the day.

Running at 200km/h in a tunnel from Sydney to Macarthur, emerging and running at 400km/h to somewhere near Cragieburn and tunnelling again for 200km/h might be pretty competitive, but it would also be very expensive.

Why should an unsubsidised air service which meets most people's needs have a subsidised service competing against it?  Makes more sense in Europe because (a) distances are shorter and (b) flying weather isn't nearly as good.

[colinw]

I don't see "it will compete with unsubsidised airlines" (which actually got into the position they are in through decades of Government ownership & subsidisation) as a valid reason not to  perform a strategic investment in high speed rail infrastructure. Particularly given that long term viability & sustainability of the airline industry is very much an open question - over all the airline industry worldwide is a loss making enterprise sustained by the public purse, and has been for decades. I read an article somewhere (will post link if I can find it) which claims that over the last 50 years, the cumulative losses on air travel that Governments worldwide have had to cover are of the order of US$ 1 trillion.

If we get to the point where Governments are afraid to invest in public transport infrastructure because it might tread on commercial toes then we're in a bad situation indeed (rail link to Melbourne Airport, anyone?)

In any case, who says the airlines might not participate in HSR and switch some of their traffic to rail. Wasn't one of the airlines part of the SpeedRail consortium?

I'm also going to disregard your comments about the proposed form of project (tunnel to Craigieburn or Macarthur indeed!) as a straw man argument, as I did not at any point nominate a preferred route into or out of Sydney or Melbourne.  Having ridden the AVE into the centre of cities in Spain, where you run at 160+ on the surface on alignments that parallel existing suburban rail lines, I'm not going to buy the idea that you would need to tunnel it the whole way from the outer suburbs.

Simon, I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one. I can see where you are coming from, but I'm afraid my ideological position is quite different.

[somebody]

I see where you are coming from there.

I'm pretty sure VFT mark I did indeed have a tunnel to Macarthur or somewhere near it, BTW, that was the one Qantas was willing to invest in.  Speedrail was a SYD-CBR route.

The sustainability of the whole airline industry has a question mark over it.  I'm not ready yet to endorse the investment though.

[colinw]

On the subject of airline sustainability, there is some interesting work in Brazil (Embraer) toward running jet engines on biofuels. I believe they have test flown small jets (Embraer E series) which can utilise a significant percentage of ethanol in the fuel.

Although ethanol in itself is a very poor sustainability solution, due to land degradation, loss of food crop land, and the fact that we'd need about 5 times the current arable land area of the entire Earth just to replace current fossil fuel technologies.

Over all I am a "technological optimist", and believe in the human race's ability to engineer itself out of trouble. I believe rail systems, including high speed, play a part in that engineering driven solution to current problems.

I thought Speedrail proposed to follow the East Hills line at speeds no greater than around 160?

[somebody]

There is also cellulosic ethanol which is made from non-edible parts of plants.  Not commercially viable yet, but could be down the track.

Speedrail probably did go down the East Hills line, but that was a later proposal going only to Canberra.  I think it had a 90 minute journey from Sydney Terminal.  The question was and is: can the market sustain a 200 seat train running at least as often as 70-odd seat flights do on the corridor.

[Golliwog]

There is also cellulosic ethanol which is made from non-edible parts of plants.  Not commercially viable yet, but could be down the track.

Speedrail probably did go down the East Hills line, but that was a later proposal going only to Canberra.  I think it had a 90 minute journey from Sydney Terminal.  The question was and is: can the market sustain a 200 seat train running at least as often as 70-odd seat flights do on the corridor.

Well during the middle of the day each airline is roughly hourly, with pretty much all leaving on the hour (at least Sydney to Melbourne anyway). Mornings and evening the airlines both go either every 30 or 15 minutes. Anyone know what the difference in operating costs is?

[somebody]

I think the SYD-CBR-MEL proposal goes via Cooma or similar to get around the mountains.  I agree that going via Tumut or near would be horrendous - the road can't even manage that.  I'd be inclined to bypass CBR if going to MEL.

[colinw]

Madrid - Zaragoza - Barcelona isn't as sparse as the example (going to Almeria) that RTT_Rules gives, as it follows the fairly densely populated Henares valley (home of the busy C2/C7 suburban rail line), then goes via some larger centres like Guadalajara, Zaragoza, Lleida, etc. Of the European high speed lines, it is the closest equivalent to Sydney - Canberra - Melbourne I could think of, although still somewhat sparser in population for parts of it.

It does traverse some quite rough terrain with long tunnels. The scenery in places is quite memorable, well worth doing.  There's one spectacular bit where you come out of tunnel onto a bridge high above a canyon. Partway down the side of the canyon, crossing under the high speed line at 90 degrees, are the highway and a single track electrified 5'6" gauge line. Then at the bottom is a very rocky river bed with rapids. This is all glimpsed in the seconds between emerging from one tunnel and entering the next. Great stuff!

RTT_Rules raises some good points, which I think are a useful counterpoint to my post above. I still think there's a role for Government in building rail (and other infrastructure).

[somebody]

Syd-Broadmeadow is 161km apart, takes 2:10hr on express,

Fastest train I can see in the current timetable is the 17:15 ex-Central, which takes 2h28min.  You're probably thinking of the pre-2005 timetable.

To be honest, I think it is too hard to fix up any of the interurban services in Sydney.  The passengers would complain because most of the stations would need to go and have bus + park 'n' ride connections.  And if you get too much use it would be difficult to find paths into Sydney anyway.

[frereOP]

... Issue is it will more than likely require mostly govt funds or consessions, then why are tax payers paying for a finacial white elephant?

Because this is the typical narrow minded and ill-informed view about "cost/revenue raising potential" that people resort to when they don't bother to properly assess the benefits.  Governments are in a position to go way beyond the conventional business model of cash flow and consider the wider community benefit to the economy as a whole.  The cost of building and running an HST will be revenue negative BUT, the cost of running it will be more than offset by returns to the economy in general (eg reduction in road trauma and road damage, cost of not having to build a new airport outside Sydney, regional development and decentralisation etc etc etc).

The REAL question is NOT how much revenue will it raise compared to what it costs to build and operate, but what is the cost to the community and future generations as a whole of NOT building it.

[frereOP]

Article: Slow end to fast-train project
by Peter Quick
The Courier-Mail
June 05, 2012 12:00AM


For example, Paris to Lyon, one of France's prime TGV routes, is 465km apart, about half the distance between Sydney and Melbourne. And London to Paris by Eurostar is closer at 350km.

Australia just doesn't have these demographics. Air travel is the best option for inter-city journeys. We have smallish cities widely separated, similar to the US and Canada, both with well-established domestic air networks and not one VFT.

So, minister, I think you are wasting your energy and our money on this cat. Put it out of its misery now.

- Peter Quick is a Sunshine Coast-based transport consultant and writer.

Tipical Courier fudging the figures
According to google as the crow flys melbourne to sydney is 710kms that means Paris to Lyon is two thirds no a half it also ignores the fact that TGV does have routes that are up to 700kms long with journey times of around 3 hrs. No wonder I never pay for that paper. It lies and decieves.

Donald

TGV-est Paris to Strasborg 600km - currently 2.5h travelling time with the last 30 mins to Strasborg on the old line at Australian railway speeds until the new HS line is finished.  The TGV then heads on to Zurich via Basel and the whole trip takes 4.5 hours.

[#Metro]

Because this is the typical narrow minded and ill-informed view about "cost/revenue raising potential" that people resort to when they don't bother to properly assess the benefits.  Governments are in a position to go way beyond the conventional business model of cash flow and consider the wider community benefit to the economy as a whole.  The cost of building and running an HST will be revenue negative BUT, the cost of running it will be more than offset by returns to the economy in general (eg reduction in road trauma and road damage, cost of not having to build a new airport outside Sydney, regional development and decentralisation etc etc etc).

The REAL question is NOT how much revenue will it raise compared to what it costs to build and operate, but what is the cost to the community and future generations as a whole of NOT building it.

While I agree, I have to say that the new airport is probably still required regardless as Alan Davies demolished the case for HSR replacing air on the Canberra-Sydney Corridor (only 3% of air trips out of Sydney go to Canberra) so there will be little or no relief on Sydney Airport for that purpose. The costs are absolutely extreme and the timeframe absolutely huge to do this, and this has to be balanced against alternatives such as spending the money on urban rail upgrades and core capacity expansion in places like Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide.

And I will say one other thing that is going to get up people's noses - as usual, there has been no mention of bus in all of this debate. It's all rail - If that money were spent on reviewing and re-organising a national regional PT network, akin to the national highway system - where a basic national network of bus and rail services are integrated across state borders to connect rural and regional towns, that would be very interesting...

[Golliwog]

TT, I'd also warn off looking at things on a purely pax number basis. After all, the airport's real capacity isn't decided by the number of passengers it can take through the terminal, but by the number of planes that can take off from their runways.

I would agree though that Canberra-Sydney HSR is hardly likely to negate the need for a new airport by much.

[frereOP]

TT, I'd also warn off looking at things on a purely pax number basis. After all, the airport's real capacity isn't decided by the number of passengers it can take through the terminal, but by the number of planes that can take off from their runways.

I would agree though that Canberra-Sydney HSR is hardly likely to negate the need for a new airport by much.

Except that regional airports (Canberra, Goulburn or Williamtown) become a viable option as an International Airport.  Narita (in Japan) is a LOOOOOONG way out of Tokyo but still considered as Tokyo's International airport.

[Fares_Fair]

Seriously, in my opinion, we do not have the populace to support it.
Besides if we can't duplicate to the Sunshine Coast or provide 15 minute urban frequency then why would you waste money on this $80-108 BILLION option?