High Speed and Fast Rail

[somebody]

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.

There is also Haneda, recently opened up to a bit more international flying.

[#Metro]

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.

I'm going to disagree on this one...

[Jonno]

... 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.

+1000

[#Metro]

So many things this $100 billion could be spent on

- Grade separations
- Core capacity expansions
- new train tracks, upgraded signalling, new lines
- busways

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).

Where is the evidence of this? If the goal is to take away air patronage, then the road trauma / road damage element is not relevant. A national bus/rail PT network where regional buses are co-ordinated would also have a similar benefit of reducing road trauma without having to lay much rail. If you want to regional development you could just spend $100 billion on regional towns - post a cheque in the mail for $100 billion to regional councils... these may be HSR benefits, but are not the purpose of HSR.

What is the purpose of HSR?

[Arnz]

All of that  money could probably be diverted from the HSR into fixing up all of the suburban rail networks in the 5 capital cities and the surrounding metropolitan/outer regions around Australia, including duplication/triplication/quadriplication (etc where applicable) and re-alignment works (where applicable) of all lines, including new rollingstock, most (if not all) suburban extensions and (where applicable) signalling to increase track capacity.

[Stillwater]

There is no money.  There is no money.  There is no money.  People should see the folly of dreaming of spending money for HSR that simply does not exist.  Stop.
It is a fantasy, a distraction.  It is unproductive. 

[SurfRail]

There is no money.  There is no money.  There is no money.

That is so not true.  Over 20 years, the cost of even $100bn is minuscule compared to what else is in the federal budget, and well within our power to fund without private dollars.  We have a very small tax rate compared to virtually every other developed country on Earth.  A $5bn per year fund would cost something like $500 or less per taxpayer, and with a progressive tax system the impact would be considerably less on individuals. 

The MRRT will bring in around 60% of that, although it is earmarked for various other purposes.  But even consistent funding of $1-2bn per year isolated for targeted infrastructure enhancements would be a good start.

Plenty of middle class welfare could easily be slashed, but if we are so desparate to retain it we could still afford that AND a modest infrastructure levy.

The real issue here is that there are competing demands for those funds, so even if levied they would be better spent unblocking metropolitan rail networks, freight routes, ports, intermodal terminals, and improving productivity in less direct ways (eg better funding for research and innovation).  HSR can wait until some of that gets dealt with.

[somebody]

There is no money.  There is no money.  There is no money.  People should see the folly of dreaming of spending money for HSR that simply does not exist.  Stop.
It is a fantasy, a distraction.  It is unproductive.

I agree, and with this:

The real issue here is that there are competing demands for those funds, so even if levied they would be better spent unblocking metropolitan rail networks, freight routes, ports, intermodal terminals, and improving productivity in less direct ways (eg better funding for research and innovation).  HSR can wait until some of that gets dealt with.

These things are far higher priorities.

[verbatim9]

Released today Canberra's new airport to include High Speed Rail terminal http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/article/13926361

[SurfRail]

I believe Coolingatta airport has a location for a railway platform, NG and SG. And only NG has the slightest chance of getting there on current planning in 20 years. Neither Syd or Bris had allocated space for railway platforms and now they do.So Can airport having a HSR platform location in its future design, big deal!

Q does this location allow for through running, or is it a terminus arrangement.

Shane,

Apparently the Tugun Bypass was engineered to allow a rail line to follow part of the alignment, including the tunnel slab under the southern threshold of the main 16/34 runway.

The proposed alignment is basically like a big spoon - follows the Tugun bypass on the eastern side, curves right around and under the runway, then either an elevated or underground station diagonally across the car park in front of the main terminal.  Trains would go from travelling south-east to end up "facing" to the north-west, so no prospect of through-routing without either reversing or bypassing the airport altogether.  The change in direction looks like over 180 degrees.  (The bottom of the curve would be just over the border into NSW.)

There has been no detailed design work for LRT outside the line being built, and only conceptual work has been done for the Helensvale-Parkwood and Broadbeach-Burleigh stretches.  The airport masterplan identifies that they are anticipating it willenter the airport precinct somewhere north of the main intersection, stop at the terminal and continue over to Coolangatta proper.

[somebody]

Hi Surfrail,
Appreciate the feedback, I am aware with Coolingatta arrangement, the last line was actually referencing Canberra. Sorry for confusion.

For the record I wouldn't mind seeing a MSR built from Canberra to Sydney. I think it has more merit than given credit for and unlike Newcastle will be a hell of alot cheaper/km. I would have thought you could get a new line from Canberra to Goulburn on the ground, single track, no O/H, one extended passing lane and a connection for the garbage trains for $1B, maybe $1.5B and cut the Goulburn to Canberra section time by close to 1hr with a 200km/hr DMU. With another 30-50min up for grabs with a rebuild on the South Main to Campbelltown. The later improvements also benefiting all other rail users.

regards
Shane

That's what I think too, or it's at least worth looking at.  I just question whether 200km/h (diesel) or more like 250km/h (requiring electric) should be the goal.  It's a 50 minute flight, so would a 90-120 minute train trip be competitive?  Hence it may need to be electric.

[somebody]

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.

Thinking about this, this would be extremely inefficient for a long range flight.  Ethanol (from wiki) has an energy content of 27MJ/kg while Jet Fuel has an energy content of 43 MJ/kg.  The trouble is the Oxygen in the compound which is basically meaning it is already partly burnt.  To put it into context, when a 747-400ER takes off in LAX bound for MEL 40-50% of its weight is fuel.  So a significant amount of fuel is burnt just to carry fuel.

In an Embraer puddle jumper it may be acceptable though if Oil rises highly enough.

[colinw]

I think that is exactly the problem with the idea. Good for short haul / regional jets & turboprops in an ethanol rich country like Brazil. Would be dead hopeless for long haul.  Note also that Brazil is investing big time in rail, with a couple of HSR projects underway and plans announced to build metros in the 24 largest cities. São Paulo & Rio de Janeiro are about 350km apart, an ideal distance for HSR, so I would expect high speed rail will dominate that route once built.  No problem with viability with cities of over 10 million at each end of the line!

Given that jet fuel is just a well regulated fraction of kerosene, a biodiesel like fuel might be usable.

[somebody]

Given that jet fuel is just a well regulated fraction of kerosene, a biodiesel like fuel might be usable.

Air NZ have already done this.

[colinw]

^ it was actually Simon who brought that up, not me.

It is a valid point. With air travel in particular, the energy per unit of fuel weight (and to a certain extent, volume as well) is critical.

I see the effect of that even with my hobby of flying control line model planes.  I run two types of engine,  methanol fueled glow plug ignition, and kerosene fueled compression ignition (a primitive 2 stroke diesel).  Given the same engine capacity, a glow plug engine burning alcohol needs almost twice as much fuel as the diesel for the same flight duration (e.g. a 4cc glow will need around 120ml of fuel for the same flight a 4cc diesel would do with 70ml).

Where this becomes relevant to the discussion at hand about HSR, is that if/when fossil fuels become significantly scarcer & more expensive, the economics may shift in favour of HSR over distances longer than at present.  Electric high speed rail at least has the option of shifting to different power generation methods (nuclear, solar, tidal, wind ...), whereas barring major breakthroughs aviation will remain dependent on burning fairly high MJ/kg liquid fuels.

Over the coming decade or two, I expect the economics to shift in favour of high speed rail for distances up to around 1000km, beyond which air will remain dominant (but a lot more expensive).

The real bite will be on international travel, where major increases in fuel costs would surely lead to a major decline in the number of people travelling.

[somebody]

I don't think air will increase in cost for hops which HSR is competitive with quite that much.

Although I totally agree about international copping the brunt.  I think when QF's fuel bill was around 1/3 of its total costs (with high fuel prices around 2007), for domestic it still had a 1 in front of it, but on SYD/MEL-LAX it was more like 50% of the cost of the flight.  Can't remember where I saw that though.

One interesting possibility would be LNG, which has more energy by weight, but less by volume.

[AnonymouslyBad]

Over the coming decade or two, I expect the economics to shift in favour of high speed rail for distances up to around 1000km, beyond which air will remain dominant (but a lot more expensive).

The real bite will be on international travel, where major increases in fuel costs would surely lead to a major decline in the number of people travelling.

How much *would* HSR actually cost if it already existed? The cheapest SYD-BNE or SYD-MEL flights are usually pushing $150 on short notice these days. In today's race-to-the-bottom environment with airlines, that sounds rather expensive.

Even if it costed the same, I'd take HSR over air travel for a <1000km trip. HSR might take longer on paper - but by the time you take into account all the messing around at airports, actually getting to/from airports, etc. there might not be much difference at all, depending on the type of HSR.

Even then, considering the (let's be honest) general discomfort of economy air travel, I'd rather sit on a train for 3 hours than a plane for 1.5 hours any day.

I think, for international travel, most people will just adjust their expectations of price. The difference with overseas travel is that there's not any other practical option but to fly. No doubt there will be reduced patronage, but to what extent I'm not sure. It may not be much as people simply accept that they will pay more.

Domestic travel is another matter. Considering our population, the fact that SYD-MEL and SYD-BNE are among the busiest flight paths in the entire world is absolutely ludicrous, but I think most people will only realise that when it starts costing our economy dearly...

[somebody]

I haven't paid $150 SYD-BNE for a long time or very often, and I fly a lot at peak times.  I expect $90-110.

I think if oil went to $400/barrel, airfares SYD-BNE and SYD-MEL would go to around $200-250, until more tailored types are developed.  Does that put it into context?

[somebody]

Australian Airlines tend to turn their fleets over 5-10yrs so they won't suffer too long on high fuel prices if their is newer technology around.

That might have been true once, but no more.  QF's fleet has a number of planes approaching or over 20 years old.  Virgin have never sold an owned plane to my knowledge, although a number of 737-700s have been returned to lessors to be replaced by owned 737-800s.

[somebody]

To fix up the Canberra service, the first thing to do is to put a crossover between Erskenville and Redfern to connect Sydney Terminal with Sydenham without conflicting with sector 1 (Bondi Junction-Sutherland+), and then route via Sydenham rather than Strathfield.

Erskenville-Sydenham sextup would have provided the same benefit, but it isn't deemed justified.

[somebody]

The 747-400s are also pushing it for being old.  Only 9 of them are around 10 years old, the rest (was 21, some retired now) are around 20.
The 747-300s were around 20 years old when retired too.  I think well over actually.

The move is on to rationalise to
A330-200/300
A380-800
B737-800
B787-900
over next 6 years.

Which is weird.  Means the 744ERs would be retired young, but I doubt that will actually happen.  But we aren't here to talk about QF's fleet plans.

Imagine the A330 and B737 will make up the backbone of domestic fleet and B787 and A380 the international fleet. A330's and B737's maybe to NZ and other very short haul international.

Presumably.

[colinw]

Railway Gazette International -> Ankara - Izmir high speed line contract signed

18 June 2012

TURKEY: A contract for the construction of the first stage of a planned Ankara - Izmir line suitable for 250 km/h running was signed by Minister of Transport Binali Yildirim and a consortium of Sigma, Burkay, Makimsan and YDA on June 11.

The YTL700m contract covers 167 km of new line between Afyonkarahisa and a junction with the existing Ankara - Konya line at Kocahaccili.

This segment forms the first phase of a three-stage YTL4bn project to complete a 624 km fast line linking Ankara with Izmir via Usak. On completion this will cut journey times between the cities from an uncompetitive 14 h by the existing 825 km rail route or more than 8 h by road to 3 h 30 min by fast train.

[ozbob]

The Hour --> California high-speed rail gets green light

[frereOP]

There is no money.  There is no money.  There is no money.

... A $5bn per year fund would cost something like $500 or less per taxpayer, and with a progressive tax system the impact would be considerably less on individuals. 


Plenty of middle class welfare could easily be slashed, but if we are so desparate to retain it we could still afford that AND a modest infrastructure levy.

The real issue here is that there are competing demands for those funds, so even if levied they would be better spent unblocking metropolitan rail networks, freight routes, ports, intermodal terminals, and improving productivity in less direct ways (eg better funding for research and innovation).  HSR can wait until some of that gets dealt with.
[/quote

Problem is governments get elected by promising minuscule tax cuts (like Campbell Newman promising to save drivers $70/y on their rego or water bill - for god sake, if this is what our priorities are then we are truely stuffed!) and then when people want the best of everything (reliable electricity and water supplies, fast and efficient transport, and no hospital waiting lists for elective suragery), no one wants to pay for it.  Try taking a promise of tax increases to an election!

[frereOP]

I believe Coolingatta airport has a location for a railway platform, NG and SG. And only NG has the slightest chance of getting there on current planning in 20 years. Neither Syd or Bris had allocated space for railway platforms and now they do.So Can airport having a HSR platform location in its future design, big deal!

Q does this location allow for through running, or is it a terminus arrangement.

Sydney and Brisbane have rail links to city terminals already (Brisbane painfully and unnecessarily slow compared to somewhere like Singapore) so HSR should not have terminals at these airports. Melbourne, well it too should have a fast, direct urban link.

Canberra, Goulburn and Williamtown are a different story as potential second international airports for Sydney.

[frereOP]

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.

Thinking about this, this would be extremely inefficient for a long range flight.  Ethanol (from wiki) has an energy content of 27MJ/kg while Jet Fuel has an energy content of 43 MJ/kg.  The trouble is the Oxygen in the compound which is basically meaning it is already partly burnt.  To put it into context, when a 747-400ER takes off in LAX bound for MEL 40-50% of its weight is fuel.  So a significant amount of fuel is burnt just to carry fuel.

In an Embraer puddle jumper it may be acceptable though if Oil rises highly enough.

Turbines can burn almost anything. I've heard of a crop duster using sump oil at a pinch when Jet A1 wasn't available. Hence, highly reduced oils like long chain poly unsaturated fatty acid vegetable oils are possible provided they don't solidify at altitude.

[frereOP]

Imagine the A330 and B737 will make up the backbone of domestic fleet and B787 and A380 the international fleet. A330's and B737's maybe to NZ and other very short haul international.

A330's are suitable for long haul as well following changes to ETOPS regulations and should also be considered as part of the mix because of their capacity.

[frereOP]

The final report on the feasility of HSR in Australia should be due out any time. Has anyone heard anything yet about an expected release date yet?

[somebody]

Imagine the A330 and B737 will make up the backbone of domestic fleet and B787 and A380 the international fleet. A330's and B737's maybe to NZ and other very short haul international.

A330's are suitable for long haul as well following changes to ETOPS regulations and should also be considered as part of the mix because of their capacity.

Only some long haul.  A330-300s would really need to stretch to reach Japan, for example.  The -200 can do it.

ETOPS-180 happened ages ago so I'm not sure what change you are referring to.  Longer ETOPS (EDTO technically) would not be operated by A330s and (arguably) over CASA's dead body operated from Australia with a 787 or A350.  Only exception I can think of where an A330 would be useful with Longer ETOPS is PER-JNB.

[frereOP]

Imagine the A330 and B737 will make up the backbone of domestic fleet and B787 and A380 the international fleet. A330's and B737's maybe to NZ and other very short haul international.

A330's are suitable for long haul as well following changes to ETOPS regulations and should also be considered as part of the mix because of their capacity.

Only some long haul.  A330-300s would really need to stretch to reach Japan, for example.  The -200 can do it.

ETOPS-180 happened ages ago so I'm not sure what change you are referring to.  Longer ETOPS (EDTO technically) would not be operated by A330s and (arguably) over CASA's dead body operated from Australia with a 787 or A350.  Only exception I can think of where an A330 would be useful with Longer ETOPS is PER-JNB.

B773's operate YBBN-DCT-KLAX now (DJ) but that would be stretching it a bit for an A330-200 with a shorter range, and the A330-300 would need to replace it's life-rafts after every flight.

But this has got WAY off topic.  I can see airlines getting into HSR in Australia.  Imaging getting Frequent Flyer points on a trip from Canberra or Newcastle to Sydney and being able to use your laptop and phone on the internet all the way!

My first experience of this was when I was visiting my son in London and I had just got off a train from Euston to Watford Junction Station.  Walking to my son's house just beside the railway line, a Virgin Pendalino flew past about 3m away at about 200+ kph and scared the living bejesus out of me!

[somebody]

Not sure which route you are refering to for the 787 or 350,

What I mean is that you won't see either plane on SYD-JNB or SYD-SCL (Johannesburg & Santiago) for a number of years.

but having done Syd- Vancouver in a 767 in 2003 and back, I cannot see why a 787 couldn't do the same but without the stop at Hawaii.

777-200LR Already does this.

[somebody]

Perth-Johannesburg is 8300km (over water bit while not counter Madagascar which cuts off 1000km), from Syd its just over 11,000km. So within range any decent sized twin jet. Syd- Hawaii is 8160km, so if this is allowed provided those few islands that dot the western side of the Indian Ocean have a suitable airstrip I woudl have thought it should be good to go for a twin.

Oh FFS.


http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=syd-jnb%2C+per-jnb&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=&PATH-UNITS=km&PATH-MINIMUM=&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE=&ETOPS=180

Greyed out region is what is currently not approved to twins from Australia. 

While an NZ registered twin may well be able to fly AKL-EZE (Buenos Aires) for example, CASA are very unlikely to approve it.  This has been tested recently with VA's MEL-JNB service.  It's been blogged on planetalking but I couldn't find it in one minute so I'm giving up.

Chile, probably not. Thats along way over F_all.

About the same.  SCL goes near CHC and not so far from IPC.

From my days as training to be ATC when twins couldn't fly more than I think 2hr at the time over the sea from any coast. We were basically told the know that landing on anything but a suitable runway will lead to around a 50% death rate. What they are really after is getting the black box and significant parts of the plane back so they can work out what went wrong and prevent a re-occurance if possible.

Loosing a twin or even a quad over ocean with a depth of few km just means the airline company insurance pays out, but they get no answers why due to depth. At least if they get access to parts of the plane and work out what happened, blame maybe shifted or assigned more accurately and hence the airlines insurance has a position to seek compensation from a 3rd party who may have caused the fault, ie engine or airline maufacturer. Meanwhile they can potentially find the fault and fix and prevent a 2nd crash on similar, ie not repeat the Comet experience where they had to wait until one crashed close to land.

I know some people will say no its about lives, yeah kind of. The airline industry is full of cost-benefit analysis and Boeing is not alone in privately working out the cost of a fix verus the cost of paying compensation "if" it goes wrong and "if" they get caught out (ie 747 centre fuel tank).

The A330 Air France that went missing in middle of Atlantic, they put in a huge effort and cost to find out why when historically I think they would have given up. The fact that it was an Airbus Air France made in France plane makes me wonder what would have happened if it was a Boeing plane from Brazil?

regards
shane

Well, you should be well across those issues, they still apply but the time is now 3 hours.  Longer range EDTO is possible but subject to approval by BOTH countries + the Air Operator's Certificate issuing country.

With AF447, I think they had a pretty good idea of what happened - basically the crew failed to apply basic airmanship while the plane's computer was in a degraded mode.  CO3407 is another example of the former, so not completely implausible.

[somebody]

Approval has never been granted, nor do CASA intend to in the future from all reports.

NZ have granted approval for ETOPS-240 and intend to go to -330.

[somebody]

Perhaps so, but a significant amount of time in Australia, I think.

[O_128]

any reports of how the javelin trains are going in the UK?

[somebody]

Interesting fun fact I just read in the book "QF32", the A380 has half the noise foot print of the B747-400.

Unsurprising.  The engines are much newer tech.

I assume the B787 is similar to that in noise reduction over the 767 etc.

Agree.

Have to wonder how much more quiter the next generation planes such as the A350, the redesigned B737 Max which will have a quieter engine and the proposed Cleansheet 737 replacement due early 2020's. And also at what noise level do planes have to be to enable reduction/elimination of the Sydney curfew? Being able to enable more international flights at night will increase capacity for domestic and hence reduce the need for a govt funded HSR.

A350 will probably be approximately equal to the 787 - perhaps slightly louder because it's a bigger plane.  737Max won't get the same improvement because engines can't be enlarged significantly.

[somebody]

Which is near what I said, just with an amplified explanation.

[SteelPan]

For General Interest purposes re high-speed rail:

California is DOING it!  (High-Speed Rail that is  )

http://www.azobuild.com/news.asp?newsID=15611

[Stillwater]

Whatever came of this: http://www.jobsearch.com.au/job/Rails-Leader-3fceae55cb60cb86

[somebody]

SYD-MEL is only slightly more and has the great dividing range in the way.  What's the topography like in California?

I think importantly, SYD-MEL is 706km Great Circle, while LAX-SFO is 543km.