High Speed and Fast Rail

[SteelPan]

I think a starting point for considering California's decision is it's also they've got a gorilla size economy (sluggish or not), we've got split-pea in comparison!   

[Gazza]

Still will be interesting to see what happens at 300km/hr when the ground wants to move sideways 1m in a few sec

Just use the same safety systems as they have in Japan to deal with Earthquakes.

[frereOP]

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.

Still will be interesting to see what happens at 300km/hr when the ground wants to move sideways 1m in a few sec.

regards
Shane

Just ask the Japanese. Mountainous country, 310 kph Shinkansen and earthquakes.

Shinkansen technology runs trains on elevated straight and level  tracks. TGV technology runs at ground level and "roller coaster" tracks. Perhaps the elevated rail is better suited to areas of high seismic activity.

[frereOP]

Any sign of the final report on HSR in OZ? It's due.

[verbatim9]

The only way to compete with these airports is to introduce high speed rail. A second Airport in Melbourne or Sydney is not going to happen anytime soon. Therefore High Speed rail is the only alternative to compete with the price gouging of the the privatised airports http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/travel/travel-news/airport-car-park-prices-go-sky-high-20120823-24oxl.html

[somebody]

The only way to compete with these airports is to bring introduce high speed rail. A second Airport in Melbourne or Sydney is not going to happen anytime soon. Therefore High Speed rail is the only alternative to compete with the price gouging of the the privatised airports http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/travel/travel-news/airport-car-park-prices-go-sky-high-20120823-24oxl.html

Pay $80bn to get around an $80m gouge?

* Prices not accurate.

[#Metro]

The only way to compete with these airports is to introduce high speed rail. A second Airport in Melbourne or Sydney is not going to happen anytime soon. Therefore High Speed rail is the only alternative to compete with the price gouging of the the privatised airports http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/travel/travel-news/airport-car-park-prices-go-sky-high-20120823-24oxl.html

HSR would not be faster than air
and air also has a lot of capacity to go I think because you can just get much larger planes than at current. Why not fly international jets between Melbourne and Sydney?

Current domestic aircraft models only carry around 150 - 200 passengers at a time. Using an airbus, capacity can be increased 5x to around 800 passengers per flight. So while it may be true that "The Sydney - Melbourne corridor is the busiest in the world" it is also true that by using larger aircraft, capacity could be increased 5 fold... hardly a case for high speed rail.

[somebody]

SYD-MEL is #2 by number of flights
#5 by number of passengers

SYD-BNE is up there too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_passenger_air_routes

HSR would not be faster than air
and air also has a lot of capacity to go I think because you can just get much larger planes than at current. Why not fly international jets between Melbourne and Sydney?

Fuel is one reason.  Clearly the airlines don't feel this is attractive, but start charging per movement fees at higher rates and watch them change their tune.

[#Metro]

Fuel is one reason.

Really? I would have thought there were some economies of scale here.

If I have 800 passengers, and I fly them in 4 x 200 seating domestic aircraft or 1 x Airbus, surely less fuel is burned in the process plus less pilot wages and fewer planes as well???

[somebody]

Fuel is one reason.

Really? I would have thought there were some economies of scale here.

If I have 800 passengers, and I fly them in 4 x 200 seating domestic aircraft or 1 x Airbus, surely less fuel is burned in the process plus less pilot wages and fewer planes as well???

Nup. 

An A380 carries 3.08 pax per tonne of OEW. 
A 767-300ER carries 3.88 pax per tonne of OEW. 
A 737-800 carries 4.61 pax per tonne of OEW

OEW = Operating Empty Weight.

The reason is range.  The bigger planes carry a lot of extra weight to support their longer range, more than cancelling out tech improvements.

While there really isn't such a thing as "international aircraft", maybe in Australia we have shorthaul and longhaul and in Australia this usually means international. There is no stopping Australia following other countries in using larger aircraft than 767's or A330's on the intercapital route, or simply just more 767/330 size. Only issue is what do you do with them in off-peak. A 737 you can fill with tourists and fly to Hamilton Island (and actually how many of these resorts actually started). But can you fill a 767?

We'd already be second in the world on this point (behind Japan, who have a huge population).  Yes, more could be done in theory, and should be if we really max out SYD.

[#Metro]

The reason is range.  The bigger planes carry a lot of extra weight to support their longer range, more than cancelling out tech improvements.

Right, but that leaves open the possibility of a high capacity, short-haul plane doesn't it? It would need to be larger, but with less fuel capacity. I think this would be possible.

As I have consistently said on this forum, as much as I like trains, the billions of dollars would be better spent on urban commuter rail services and fixing them up, and also buses.

[somebody]

The reason is range.  The bigger planes carry a lot of extra weight to support their longer range, more than cancelling out tech improvements.

Right, but that leaves open the possibility of a high capacity, short-haul plane doesn't it? It would need to be larger, but with less fuel capacity. I think this would be possible.

As I have consistently said on this forum, as much as I like trains, the billions of dollars would be better spent on urban commuter rail services and fixing them up, and also buses.

Yes, but no one wants such a thing.

[verbatim9]

The only way to compete with these airports is to introduce high speed rail. A second Airport in Melbourne or Sydney is not going to happen anytime soon. Therefore High Speed rail is the only alternative to compete with the price gouging of the the privatised airports http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/travel/travel-news/airport-car-park-prices-go-sky-high-20120823-24oxl.html

HSR would not be faster than air
and air also has a lot of capacity to go I think because you can just get much larger planes than at current. Why not fly international jets between Melbourne and Sydney?

Current domestic aircraft models only carry around 150 - 200 passengers at a time. Using an airbus, capacity can be increased 5x to around 800 passengers per flight. So while it may be true that "The Sydney - Melbourne corridor is the busiest in the world" it is also true that by using larger aircraft, capacity could be increased 5 fold... hardly a case for high speed rail.

Even replacing the older 737's with the new larger 737's gives you a 10-20% increase in capacity.

While there really isn't such a thing as "international aircraft", maybe in Australia we have shorthaul and longhaul and in Australia this usually means international. There is no stopping Australia following other countries in using larger aircraft than 767's or A330's on the intercapital route, or simply just more 767/330 size. Only issue is what do you do with them in off-peak. A 737 you can fill with tourists and fly to Hamilton Island (and actually how many of these resorts actually started). But can you fill a 767?

However turn this around, so you build a HSR which is well used in peak, but off-peak? At least a plane you can fly to NZ, Hamilton island etc, a train on a fixed corriodore?

Syd-Mel isn't the busiest rather 3rd. But even if it was first, this is still no argument why HSR should be built, its reflection of the terrain, population and distance between the two. Where HSR has been sucessful is crossing water ways, distances of less 500-600km or larger if part of a large network and having sufficent population at either end and along the route. Its worth noting the king of rail users in Western Europe, Swiz have little in the way of HSR, although they are rolling out something.

BAck to TT's comment, I don't care 1c if the private enterprise wants to build a HSR to compete with airlines. But please tell me why taxpayers should be doing so? As you said a 2nd airport for Syd won't happen anytime soon, Mel already has one, so what is the justification? because it looks good?

regards
Shane

The Terrain technicalities should be no different to what California is facing. One thing that California is doing is upgrading and electrifying the freight lines and quadruplicating the lines on busy corridors to cope with expected growth in passenger and freight transport. Smart move as for years the government in Australia has been arguing re electrifying regional rail this would be the best chance for Australia to also go ahead with regular line electrification at the same time as building the HSR. This would ensure growth in the freight and passenger movement on Rail as well as a Clean Energy Future as more power would have to be generated through Wind Power to ensure dedicated supply to the trains.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/project_vision.aspx

As for the Second Airport in Mel. This airport is a joke it would take at least 1 billion in terminal, runway and transport upgrades to and from the airport to make it a competitive airport for Melbourne. At the moment only Jetstar flies to that airport.

[frereOP]

HSR would not be faster than air
and air also has a lot of capacity to go I think because you can just get much larger planes than at current. Why not fly international jets between Melbourne and Sydney?

Current domestic aircraft models only carry around 150 - 200 passengers at a time. Using an airbus, capacity can be increased 5x to around 800 passengers per flight. So while it may be true that "The Sydney - Melbourne corridor is the busiest in the world" it is also true that by using larger aircraft, capacity could be increased 5 fold... hardly a case for high speed rail.

It ain't quite that simple.  The cost and logistics of getting a 380 into the sky far outweigh those of smaller a/c on a per capita basis.  380's are very fuel efficient but that comes from long haul flights at high altitude because fuel tanks themselves are just dead weight whether they are full or almost empty.  There are also issues with near empty tanks - condensation!  i always fill my tanks at the end of a flight to prevent condensation and water in the fuel 'coz it don't burn that good!

YSSY-YMMM is about 1h 10 min of which almost half is to top of climb and from top of decent. They just can't compete economically with 73's or 320's on flights of that duration.

[#Metro]

As for the Second Airport in Mel. This airport is a joke it would take at least 1 billion in terminal, runway and transport upgrades to and from the airport to make it a competitive airport for Melbourne. At the moment only Jetstar flies to that airport.

Yes, but even if this is true, it is still 40x cheaper than HSR.

It ain't quite that simple.  The cost and logistics of getting a 380 into the sky far outweigh those of smaller a/c on a per capita basis.  380's are very fuel efficient but that comes from long haul flights at high altitude because fuel tanks themselves are just dead weight whether they are full or almost empty.  There are also issues with near empty tanks - condensation!  i always fill my tanks at the end of a flight to prevent condensation and water in the fuel 'coz it don't burn that good!

YSSY-YMMM is about 1h 10 min of which almost half is to top of climb and from top of decent. They just can't compete economically with 73's or 320's on flights of that duration.

Which is why you would make a plane that can carry high load but do the distance, Melbourne to Sydney to Brisbane range. It think it is possible, you'd need smaller fuel tanks and less equipment. There are flights every 15 minutes or better between Melbourne and Sydney all day with QANTAS, puts a lot of Brisbane bus routes to shame!!

This is likely to be cheaper than $40 billion and also done by the private sector!!

[somebody]

Boeing studied it a couple of years ago.  They didn't do it.

[#Metro]

I think increasing aircraft size will be possible. Airports might cotton on and start altering their charging structure (in addition to price level) in order to ration spaces. And I expect a second sydney airport, despite what anyone might say.

[verbatim9]

Second Sydney Airport will not happen there is still too much opposition as opposed to the backing of HSR SYD-CBR which will alleviate peak hour plane traffic at Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport

[#Metro]

There will be a second Sydney airport in time (might take a bit of pushing), Canberra is not suitable as a second airport for Sydney given the sheer distance.

Remember, Jarrett's spectrum of Authorities:

My Feelings
Our Feelings <--- lot's of people like HSR
Culture
Psycology
Biology
Physics
Geometry <--- A larger plane carries more people
Math

Canberra - Sydney HSR was debunked here ---> http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2012/04/11/would-hsr-to-canberra-solve-sydneys-airport-woes/

[#Metro]

1 Billion to improve Avalon, this would be about 100km of HSR on straight flat ground. Sounds like a bargin to focus on Avalon.

I seriously doubt this cost. HSR needs to penetrate into the urban core of the city - this section is only a fraction of the length of the track required but is likely also the most costly as houses will have to be demolished, tunnels, earthworks etc will have to be put in. These urban sections are likely to be hugely costly, more like 150 million per kilometre like busways or normal rail infrastructure.

[verbatim9]

JD rail solutions can build HSR safer cheaper and faster "Smart Track"



http://www.jdrailsolutions.com.au

[ozbob]

Canberra to Sydney CBD High Speed Rail - more than viable

--> here!

[johnnigh]

Wonderful what a bit of self-interest can do, isn't it? I'm sure I'd say the same if I were CEO of Canberra Airport, too.

[#Metro]

"In 2035, the number of passengers overflowing from KSA and using Canberra Airport and the HSR will be 4.5 million"

Garbage. The POPULATION OF CANBERRA is only 0.3 million, so EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN CANBERRA would have to take this train 7 times (return trips) per year to get 4.5 million.

Garbarge!!

[#Metro]

Well well well
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/qantas-ceo-backs-second-sydney-airport/story-e6freonx-1226492237827

Meanwhile, Sydney Airport's owners have argued it still had plenty of capacity, pointing to the more efficient use of existing gates and larger aircraft being flown, as well as the arrival of new airlines such as Air Asia X and Scoot.

I went to Sydney recently and was surprised to find myself in a wide body 'international style' aircraft with 3 x 3 x 3 seating... all the other flights were 2 x 2

Not enough capacity? Get a bigger plane!

[somebody]

Rebuild the route yes, MSR can do it about 2:45min (without touching the current schedule nth of Campbelltown) with the side bonus that you save 30min for the freights to Melbourne and SW NSW and similar for Goulburn commuters + significant fuel and wear and tear saving along the route as well.

2h45min isn't even MSR for SYD-CBR.  Make it 90 minutes travel time and no check in requirements (carry on board luggage) and you do indeed have a competitive product timewise.  It's about 50 minutes by air gate-gate, but add 30 minute check ins and waiting for your bags to come out of the carousel and it adds up.

One of the first things though is to abolish the via Strathfield route.  Add a couple of crossovers north of Erskenville.  Also abolishing electric staff which I believe still applies on the Canberra branch.

It's currently 48mins for Campbelltown-Central(i) for a couple of Southern Highlands trains.  Doing Campbelltown-Canberra in 42 minutes seems unlikely I guess (close to 300km/h), so some improvements would have to be found in the metro area.

I went to Sydney recently and was surprised to find myself in a wide body 'international style' aircraft with 3 x 3 x 3 seating... all the other flights were 2 x 2

I'm surprised by that two.  Only Virgin even own 3x3x3 seating aircraft so that must have been a sub for a technical problem, I would guess.  Or some sort of positioning movement but these are normally in the timetable.

Perhaps something I'm not thinking of?

Not enough capacity? Get a bigger plane!

I agree with this.  You've seen both major carriers in Australia do precisely this over the last decade or so.  737-300/400s are on their way out of Qantas, DHC-8-100s have been removed, 737-700s are going from Virgin.  Both carriers now have wide body domestic flying.

This option will run out eventually though if growth continues.

[SurfRail]

"In 2035, the number of passengers overflowing from KSA and using Canberra Airport and the HSR will be 4.5 million"

Garbage. The POPULATION OF CANBERRA is only 0.3 million, so EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN CANBERRA would have to take this train 7 times (return trips) per year to get 4.5 million.

Garbarge!!

I interpret that as saying they think 4.5m passengers can be diverted to Canberra rather than landing at YSSY.

Those numbers seem OK to me.  Coolangatta has around 5.5m passenger movements per annum, Canberra wouldn't be too far behind even now.

[somebody]

4.5m isn't very many.  That's a few years of growth at SYD.  Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports_in_Australia

[SurfRail]

4.5m isn't very many.  That's a few years of growth at SYD.  Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports_in_Australia

I agree that it's not the best justification for such a huge outlay.

[ozbob]

The New Yorker --> Boss Rail The disaster that exposed the underside of the boom.

[ozbob]

Scotsman.com --> High speed rail link plans between Edinburgh and Glasgow unveiled

[ozbob]

Melbourne Age --> High speed train pushed

[ozbob]

CNN --> In numbers: Europe's high-speed trains

[ozbob]

Twitter

Aust Railway Assoc ‏@AustRail

Some diverse recent articles from around the world about High Speed Rail http://tinyurl.com/bh78dy4

[SurfRail]

^ Springfield involves a fair amount of viaducts and earthmoving though rather than just clearing formations, plus stations are always expensive now.  A lot of that is fixed cost (plant/equipment) which doesn't necessarily translate into double cost for double the length.

The figures I have seen for cost-benefit of the HSR so far don't look promising - something like $48bn benefits from $80bn cost on absolute best case basis.  That's a lot of money to use fixing "potholes" around the place (in some cases literal potholes like in Victoria...)

[ozbob]

WA Today --> World's longest high-speed rail link ready for launch

[ozbob]

From Aljazeera--> China launches longest high-speed train line

[somebody]

I expect this is mostly about stops on the way rather than end to end runs.  Something which doesn't apply here.

Even if it does stack up here, it hardly counts as a priority.

[frereOP]

The figures I have seen for cost-benefit of the HSR so far don't look promising - something like $48bn benefits from $80bn cost on absolute best case basis.  That's a lot of money to use fixing "potholes" around the place (in some cases literal potholes like in Victoria...)

I wonder where we would be today if people used that same argument to lobby against the existing mainline infrastructure we have today. This is infrastructure for the long term future, not a simple argument between potholes and a fun fair ride.

[#Metro]

I am against concrete fiestas simply because that money invariably turns $$$ for service into tonnes of concrete which doesn't carry pax. Some people seem to think that building infrastructure for the sake of building infrastructure is a good thing. It is not. Clem 7 (BCC lost $773 million dollars on that - and the PR at BCC is so good they escaped being nailed and fried at stake for that), AirportLink and Darwin-Adelaide Railway.

If it is only needed in the future, don't build it until the future comes.

Aircraft already run at up to twice the speed of HSR and are faster and point to point. There's only terminal infrastructure to maintain.

Money would be far better spent fixing up the urban transport fiascos in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane.