High Speed and Fast Rail

[ozbob]

The closest I ever got to 'high speed rail' here in Oz was sitting in the cab of a rocking and rolling R class on the Swan Hill pass, roaring across the Mallee when I was 4!

R711 on the move ..

[pandmaster]

France the king and home of HSR, doesn't have a single central station for its HSR network in Paris. It has four HSR terminal stations, none in what you would call the centre part of Paris and all 2-4 stops by RER (not the Metro, would be many more stops) from each other. We had to go from one to another either side of the river it was 10-12min on the RER. Hence I'm thinking something more suitable on south side may simply be far more practical.

I do not think Paris is worth comparing to Brisbane. Paris is a lot less centralised than Brisbane and much larger in population, visitor numbers (business and leisure), national and international importance. It also has the same gauge as the rest of the nation and Western Europe, thus they were able to use existing tracks to get in and out of Paris. There was no central station to begin with so building one would be very difficult to find land (especially with heritage buildings), costly to build and be politically charged in where exactly it would be. Paris is fed into in all directions from high speed and conventional lines, so having one or only a few main stations would require huge amounts of space and massive numbers of tracks and platforms.

Unlike Paris, Brisbane will have HSR coming from only one direction for the foreseeable future and lacks the existing track capacity to have high-speed trains use existing track. In Paris they could free up train paths into the existing stations by replacing existing services with the TGV, a luxury Brisbane does not have. Brisbane has one central activity centre (the CBD) with an existing central long-distance station (Roma Street). The city the most accessible part of Brisbane and is where lots of people want to go. Any non central location for the station will be too far from the city to attract passengers away from air or so close that you may as well build the line all the way to the city anyway. If the government/s is spending this huge amount of money on a high-speed line, they may as well build it properly the first time. Cutting corners then has lead to huge issues later on so many occasions in Queensland and Australia.

HSR may be costly but it will bring new benefits and cost savings (e.g. less road maintenance and improvements, delaying or preventing the need to expand airport infrastructure, productivity benefits, breathing new life into regional areas, time savings, productivity improvements, pollution reduction (even if coal-powered electricity is used)). The demand is there, just look at the data on the world's busiest air routes. The technology exists to make the rail compete with air over the relatively short distances involved.

TL;DR: Paris' circumstances made sense for the TGV, Brisbane's make sense for a central station in the city. HSR will pay for itself with ticket sales, cost savings from other areas and other improvements in productivity.

[ozbob]

Twitter

Taras Grescoe ‏@grescoe

10 billion: passengers carried by #Japan's bullet-train network since 1964 0: Number of fatalities. http://bit.ly/1vu4qiN  #shinkansen b'day

[pandmaster]

Getting to the Brisbane CBD and under Roma Street will be a costly and complex excercise. pretty much have to follow the CRR staying west of the CRR tunnels as you approach the river and then up to Roma Street. The terminus would be in a tunnel which would then need extensive underground servicing facilities or the ongoing cost of moving the train back out to somewhere for service then turn around. All this for 1 maybe 2 train's per hour!!!!

Would not Park Road have the same issue with the station being underground? The line would have to be tunnelled from Park Road a considerable distance south I imagine. The latest government report had the line coming from the south-west and Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) from the east/south-east, so that would be a new alignment, probably rerouting the BZE proposal.

1-2 trains an hour is what BZE forecast during the middle of the day, with a few more in peak periods. Into the future I would anticipate many more services would be required, which Park Road possibly could not handle on QR trains and buses, especially if BaT did not have a station there. At the very least provision would have to be made to extend the line into the city as the connections to Park Road HSR would reach capacity much quicker than at Roma Street.

As with all projects, there are swings and roundabouts to each proposal. Park Road may be cheaper, but the increased benefits of a Roma Street station could pay for itself through increased fares, increased tax revenue from induced economic activity, etc... If a tunnel is built anyway (either a HSR tunnel to the south, BaT/CRR or both) then the extra cost may be worthwhile.

Paris could have easily tunneled from the existing stations and chose not to, because it would have added a huge cost for very little return as there is already an extensive rail network to get people where they need to go. It cannot use the RER network as a means of moving through the city, where would these trains go?

The huge passenger numbers (190 million p.a. at Gare du Nord alone) and train movements at the current termini would require a massive station were they to be served by a central station, all of which would have to be built from scratch amongst the extensive underground network of tunnels and other subterranean structures, heritage listed buildings and varying soil types. The excellent connections in Paris made it much more feasible to have separate termini. The solution in Paris made sense for their circumstances, Brisbane is very much different.

While I agree most European intercity trains terminate at the central station which is city centric, they as you said use existing track infrastructure to get there and often share tracks with other types of trains. As you said Brisbane doesn't have this option therefore must build at significant cost. How much do you want to spend for what is a mostly a symbolic return? $2B would get us a new branch line to Beaudesert or maybe even a line to Toowoomba or duplicate and realign the NC line to Nambour or build most of the SC line or finish the GC line and Quad parts of BL line.

If the return is not there to build the line all the way to Roma Street then I would not be for it. That largely depends on what time frame you look at. Over the long term, it would certainly pay off as city-peripheral stations would not be able to handle the volume of passengers without significant investment, which may as well be spend on building the line all the way through. On RailBOT there is a theme of half-baked projects, of which a non-city centre terminus may constitute. I do not see a problem with doing something right the first time, rather than the second or third, even if other projects are delayed.

The HSR does not necessarily have to crowd out other projects, which are also important in their own ways. There will be savings in other infrastructure expenditure, as well as increased tax revenue from induced economic activity as well as revenue from the line itself which would help pay for it. Some crafty accounting making the HSR infrastucture company separate entity may prevent crowding out as well. One of the major problems our governments have is salami slicing: it is much easier to do lots of little projects than several major ones. If other projects will have a greater benefit, then they should be done first.

A terminus at Park Rd achieves the same as Paris and Roma st. Access to 3 main corridors into the city if that's what you want, but also easy access onto rail transport to move you around the greater city including the airport. The assumption of arriving at Roma St is that most people will walk to their final destination in the city. This maybe true for some day travelers, but not all. St Brisbane used to offer similar and now would be more centralised with the building of South bank.

I do not think huge numbers of pedestrians would be part of the scenarios modelled in these studies. Roma Street has excellent connectivity to other rail and bus, plus many people would get taxis or dropped off like they do at the airport today.
[/quote]

The HSR argument of airport upgrade deferral has always been weak as the numbers don't stack up when you look at the actual airport traffic and with the airports now in private hands its not a public purse issue anyway. The comparison with HSR and busy air routes conveniently ignores the significant difference between where this has been a success and the Australian East Coast corridor.

You make a good point about airport upgrade deferral being a matter for private companies. There is still money spent on infrastructure serving the airport(e.g. AirportLink) and the second Sydney airport will almost certainly get public funds spent on it. There is also the wider economic benefit of not relying on private companies to upgrade airport infrastructure when it is desperately needed (delays at BNE muck up the entire airport system). You are right though, per se it is not a public purse issue.

There will probably always be flights between BNE, SYD and MEL for various reasons (connections, people's personal preference). This can be drastically cut though by making the train as appealing as possible. Crucially, this can drastically reduce the environmental impacts of travelling, especially if Australia converts from coal to renewable energy (or, but not likely, nuclear). The wider economic benefits of decreased car pollution and congestion and ability for labour to decentralise will offset the costs of HSR or pay for it.

HSR to Brisbane is at least 30 years away, maybe more if there is common sense. Lets not waste limited public funding on making allowances for something that won't happen for a generation, at best.

Building the line long ago would have been much cheaper in terms of land costs. By delaying it even longer the line will never end up being built. Public funds need to be spent now on acquiring the corridor at the very least so that one day it actually can be built.

All being said, I would rather any HSR to no HSR!

[ozbob]

Railway Gazette --> Accelerated development: European regional high-speed

[ozbob]

airrailNEWS --> California High-Speed Rail Authority invites Train Manufacturers to express interest

[ozbob]

RT --> Japan approves plans for world's fastest train line

The Japanese government has approved plans for a train that will carry passengers from Tokyo to Nogoya at a speed of 310 miles per hour (500 kph). The train, which will be the fastest in the world, will use magnetic levitation technology.

The new line will stretch 180 miles (290 km) between the two cities, and the journey will take just 40 minutes. This is half the time that the current bullet train takes, which travels at speeds of up to 200 mph (322 kph), The Wall Street Journal reports.

The train is the brainchild of JR Tokai, the main railway company operating in the Chūbu region of central Japan. In Japanese, "Tokai" means "East Sea" and is the name of the region between Tokyo and Nogoya.

[ozbob]

IRJ --> How China builds high-speed rail for less

China has built the world's largest high-speed rail network in less than a decade and construction costs for high-speed lines are now as much as a third lower than in other countries. Gerald Ollivier, Jitendra Sondhri and Nanyan Zhou from the World Bank's Beijing office explain how China continues to develop a world-class system with world-beating unit costs ...

More --> http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/high-speed/how-china-builds-high-speed-rail-for-less.html?channel=540

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Melbourne-Brisbane high speed rail cheap at half the price

[ozbob]

ARA report -->

http://www.ara.net.au/UserFiles/file/Publications/14-10-27%20REPORT-The-Potential-Impacts-of-High-Speed-Rail-to-Eastern-Australia.pdf

[#Metro]

It has thus been demonstrated that –
 HSR influences the image of a city or changes it in a positive way
 HSR has the tendency to stimulate a change or redevelopment in land use
 HSR stimulates economic investment in brand new industries
There is a clear positive distinction between HSR cities and non-HSR cities in the same
country in terms of benefits in the areas of industry, retail/shopping, offices, hotels, residential
areas and entertainment.

I don't agree with the ARA a lot of the time. None of the reasons above are the core purpose of public transport or transport in general. Its like saying we have police so that we can improve the city image, sirens add excitement, and it makes good police dramas on TV/watching hi speed chases are fun.

The positive distinction may simply be cause and effect in reverse. Perhaps large cities both happen to be more diverse AND more likely to have HSR because they are large and have wide demand?

Let's look at some of these claims:

 HSR influences the image of a city or changes it in a positive way

Yes, but so does spending money, in general. Why spend it on HSR? You could spend it on Light Rail
and have the same effect? Or streetscaping? Or Urban renewal? Is HSR the best use here??

 HSR has the tendency to stimulate a change or redevelopment in land use

Yes, but so does writing a cheque and posting it to developers as a development subsidy or reduced infrastructure
charges. You don't need HSR to do that.

 HSR stimulates economic investment in brand new industries

Yes, but where did the money to pay for HSR come from? From tax money that would have been spent elsewhere if it
were not spent on HSR. This may stimulate growth in one area, by destroying it over another, wider area...

The purpose of PT must be to carry people or provide equity service. What is the purpose of this project? I would much more favour spending the money on passenger PT services and upgrades which most Australian cities desperately need. Think Melbourne signal upgrades, tunnels in the core, busways etc.

[Stillwater]

When industry and the financiers last looked at HSR in Australia, they wanted governments to use their compulsory acquisition powers to reserve and buy the land corridor along which the private sector would pay for the infrastructure to run; itself a major undertaking.  They also wanted 'development rights' for areas along the track -- in other words, the country could expect a couple of new inland cities where villages sit now, served by HSR to Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, and roads of course.

[The Reaper]

They want to build cities where there are no jobs. Look at regional Australia, how many of these are booming unless they are built on coal/iron ore/gas etc? A small number of major centres like Dubbo are doing ok due to their centralised location far from a major capital. Australian's typically want to live on the coast, if they go bush it's rarely to live in a built up city.

I have no issue with the govt buying the land for HSR. But the "inland" cities concept is a BS pipedream.

I look forward to some evidence of these claims! That would be super!

Meanwhile, of the seven inland centres that HSR proposes to serve, the total population is over 660,000 as of today. If we exclude Canberra, the total population is still over 250,000. "Whinge, whinge, that's not many people". Nope, but it's a damn lot of people to serve by default as a result of simply connecting up the major capitals. Most of the inland centres on the HSR alignment are larger than comparable French cities on LGVs, such as Le Creusot and Macon-Loche on LGV Sud-Est. Never mind the coastal centres along the route, either, obviously?

I personally can't wait for HSR to be delivered here, but for now it seems like there's a lot of "2) It probably can be done, but it's not worth doing" going on.

[#Metro]

Meanwhile, of the seven inland centres that HSR proposes to serve, the total population is over 660,000 as of today. If we exclude Canberra, the total population is still over 250,000. "Whinge, whinge, that's not many people". Nope, but it's a damn lot of people to serve by default as a result of simply connecting up the major capitals. Most of the inland centres on the HSR alignment are larger than comparable French cities on LGVs, such as Le Creusot and Macon-Loche on LGV Sud-Est. Never mind the coastal centres along the route, either, obviously?

The entire population of those cities is not going to use the train. And those cities are already served by air links, which could be improved by using larger or more frequent planes. What exactly is the purpose of this proposal? It is trying to solve a problem or is it a solution searching for a problem?

We have many problems at home that need fixing. Making new cities is crazy, Canberra took ages to develop, they way people talk makes it sound like some utopian pop up book that you just open and then *bam* a city is all there and perfect. If you are spending money on new cities (what's wrong with the current ones?) where is that money coming from? Diverted investment in the existing cities...

Spending the money on passenger transport on local PT networks is a far better idea IMHO.

[The Reaper]

The entire population of those cities is not going to use the train.

No one ever said they would, so not sure what the point of the argument is.

And those cities are already served by air links, which could be improved by using larger or more frequent planes. What exactly is the purpose of this proposal? It is trying to solve a problem or is it a solution searching for a problem?

Wow. Ok. Someone getting on HSR in Shepparton is 40-50 minutes away from the Melbourne CBD, easily within commuting time. You'd struggle to get from Melbourne Airport to CBD within 45 minutes during peak times. Even if you had a magical airtrain that got you to the city in 25 minutes, by the time you've taking into account all the air travel time it's still nowhere near as time competitive as HSR.

All the regional regenerative properties of HSR are well documented, particularly in France. I also don't see why HSR and urban PT investment have to be mutually exclusive.

[#Metro]

Wow. Ok. Someone getting on HSR in Shepparton is 40-50 minutes away from the Melbourne CBD, easily within commuting time. You'd struggle to get from Melbourne Airport to CBD within 45 minutes during peak times. Even if you had a magical airtrain that got you to the city in 25 minutes, by the time you've taking into account all the air travel time it's still nowhere near as time competitive as HSR.

All the regional regenerative properties of HSR are well documented, particularly in France. I also don't see why HSR and urban PT investment have to be mutually exclusive.

What will the train frequency be? If it is only one or two trains per hour, then it would be 30 mins + 50 = 80 minutes. Most commuters have an upper limit of 45-60 minutes door to door travel time budgets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marchetti's_constant

Secondly, why live that far? Plenty of space in Melbourne. I don't believe in regenerative properties as you can get the same effect by posting cheques to people.

[The Reaper]

What will the train frequency be? If it is only one or two trains per hour, then it would be 30 mins + 50 = 80 minutes. Most commuters have an upper limit of 45-60 minutes door to door travel time budgets.

Whatever you want it to be? Also, what's with a bonus 30 minutes? Ever heard of timing it so that you're on the service you need to be, a la practically anyone who catches a VLine service now? Also, can you think of any examples of lines in even SEQ which have commuters who are travelling well in excess of "45-60 minutes door to door"? Hint: There are two, and they both contain "Coast" in the name!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marchetti's_constant

Thanks for that, proves exactly what I'm saying, namely that it shrinks the distance of the country in terms of time travelled and opens up unencumbered land.

Secondly, why live that far? Plenty of space in Melbourne.

"LOL" and "LOL". First LOL, refer to the Gold and Sunshine Coast lines, "treechange" phenomenon, "great Australia dream". Second LOL, where? Pretty throwaway line.

I don't believe in regenerative properties as you can get the same effect by posting cheques to people.

I'm sorry that you don't believe that the economy exists.

[#Metro]

Whatever you want it to be? Also, what's with a bonus 30 minutes? Ever heard of timing it so that you're on the service you need to be, a la practically anyone who catches a VLine service now? Also, can you think of any examples of lines in even SEQ which have commuters who are travelling well in excess of "45-60 minutes door to door"? Hint: There are two, and they both contain "Coast" in the name!

I've heard of timing, but have you heard of traffic congestion and disruption? You miss your service, next one 30 minutes, 1 hour, whatever.

A map. Plenty of land in the area between Geelong, Melton and Melbourne. And then there's always UP.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Melbourne+VIC,+Australia/@-37.7468122,144.7572864,10z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x6ad646b5d2ba4df7:0x4045675218ccd90

Land far away is cheap but the price is low because the amenity and demand for that is also low. Highest property prices are in places close to the CBD where people can walk, catch the tram etc. Why? Because people want to live there.

I'm sorry that you don't believe that the economy exists.

No need to be sorry. Not 1km of HSR track in Australia, and 8 capital cities and 20+ million people, clearly didn't need HSR to come into existence. If you want urban renewal, pay and do it directly, you don't need to lay HSR track to do that.

There are enough problems at home. Spend the money fixing current networks. HSR is sexy and futuristic but so were long distance motorways in the 1960s...

V/Line carries 15 million people annually. Melbourne tram network carries 160+ million annually, 10x more pax.

In other words if you want to move the most people for the same amount of money, you'd spend it where most people actually live, in and around existing cities.

[The Reaper]

Land far away is cheap but the price is low because the amenity and demand for that is also low. Highest property prices are in places close to the CBD where people can walk, catch the tram etc. Why? Because people want to live there.

And HSR would mean that land in the regional centres is close to the CBD temporally.

No need to be sorry. Not 1km of HSR track in Australia, and 8 capital cities and 20+ million people, clearly didn't need HSR to come into existence. If you want urban renewal, pay and do it directly, you don't need to lay HSR track to do that.

There were also several billion people alive before the development of the internet.

There are enough problems at home. Spend the money fixing current networks. HSR is sexy and futuristic but so were long distance motorways in the 1960s...

V/Line carries 15 million people annually. Melbourne tram network carries 160+ million annually, 10x more pax.

In other words if you want to move the most people for the same amount of money, you'd spend it where most people actually live, in and around existing cities.

I'm not going to argue with you on this point because clearly we have differing opinions of the benefits of enabling regional city development/rejuvenation. What is clear is that you have never lived outside of a major city.

[The Reaper]

I don't know what evidence you are after.

Any evidence from you would be a start, as most of the time you state things with absolute authority which are readily shown to be false – but more on that later!

But how can we justify spending 10's of billions of $ to service 250,000?

Not even remotely close to what is being discussed. Let's recall that the 250,000 number was based on the *inland* centres only.

France has a total population of 66million with a density of 116 per km2 over 650,000km2

NSW is 20% bigger than France and with less than 10% of the population.

Useless argument, unless someone was suggesting to build HSR through the outback. Taking the 1700km route length between Brisbane and Melbourne, and a 50km wide corridor, with just the population of the cities serviced this would result in 13.2 million people over 85,000 km2, for population density of 155/km2. Even a 100km wide corridor results in 77.5/km2. It might be worth considering that when the TGV was launched in 1981 France had a population density of 83/km2.

Yes TGV in France serves a few tin pot towns like you mention, but they are on routes with 10's of millions. That 250,000 is not even one city, its a number of places.

Tin pot towns! Here's another example of your stating things with authority without having any idea. Let's look at some facts, shall we, for a change? Of the stations listed here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TGV_stations - and filtering for outliers (such as Disney), ignoring international stations, and removing duplicates (like four stations in Paris), we're left with 158 localities serviced by TGV with France. Of those 158, only seven have populations of more than one million, and only 34 have populations of greater than 100,000. A full 59 stations – more than one third – service towns of fewer than 25,000. There are your tin pot towns for you.

Please keep the comparisons real.

It appears that I did. But I already knew that!

Reading your later posting, You want to build HSR so people in Wagga-Albury can commute to Syd or Mel for work?

I never said that. I don't know why I bother sometimes. In case it isn't obvious, HSR would allow that to occur, it would also allow the reverse in allowing companies to headquarter in the regions, it would allow young people to continue to live with/near their families in the country while going to university, it would provide competition and redundancy to the airlines while at the same time connecting more of the country to the airports for international travel, it allows the retention of lifestyle by allowing people to live over a greater geographic area while maintaining relative proximity time-wise. Why not read some information from UIC  or the ITC?

And how much are these people going to pay for their fare? And next question how many $100k'spa do they need to earn to afford such a fare.

Nonsense.

This concept has been the pipedream of most HSR proposals since the 80's including running trains to Tasmania.

Irrelevant.

It may actually prove to be cheaper to pay people not to work and not build the line.

Nonsense.

The comments about $50-100 fares is rubbish. It won't happen, it doesn't happen in heavily subsidised French TGV

More lies! Lies stated with authority! Or is it simply ineptitude? It has to be one of them!

I can right this minute book a fare from Paris to Bordeaux, 584km away, in first class at full adult fare, for €29 for any trains January to March, and generally between €39-59 for the next 6 weeks. Christmas eve? Yours for a lazy €54! First class! Includes meal!

While I'm on this point, let's consider something you stated previously. "France the king and home of HSR, doesn't have a single central station for its HSR network in Paris. It has four HSR terminal stations, none in what you would call the centre part of Paris and all 2-4 stops by RER (not the Metro, would be many more stops) from each other." Not only is this statement slightly redundant as effectively anything inside Le Peripherique is 'central', but it's not even remotely true. Based on the zone system, all are squarely in zone 1. If you are talking about Les Arrondissements, all except Montparnasse are exactly one RER stop away from C-Les Halles. Montparnasse is seven stops on the Metro to Arr. 1. All readily verified by looking at the publically available maps.

(Yes I have been to France and used TGV).

Well done!

No one is saying it cannot be done technically. Alot of people are saying should it be done financially, especially if tax payers money.

And what about the $20bn annually of road spending with BCRs below parity, even before externalities are taking into account?

Do the sums yourself. Look up the capital cost x 5%pa, thats the interest, then divide that number by the number of projected users.  It works out to be in the $100's per passenger. That's just the interest! No allowance for running costs and depreciation.

No, you do the sums and demonstrate them if you want to make a point.

I support HSR, but not in Australia. No matter which submission I have read I cannot see how this stacks up financially without requiring a massive ongoing subsidy and for what purpose?

BZE (and others) suggest otherwise.

What problem are we trying to solve? The route length between M-S is marginal to compete against the airlines, the S-B is even less so. So we will subsidise train travel to make HSR viable and used so that thousands of jobs in the profitable airline industry are lost?

You and your doom and gloom about airlines. On that logic, must be no airlines in France. Why are there? HSR doesn't compete on every route. It wouldn't change Melbourne-Brisbane. But the ability to develop larger population centres outside the capitals means greater opportunity to have regional flights. Shepparton/Albury to Brisbane might become viable (large scale) with larger populations in those centres. Coffs Harbour to Adelaide the same. On the other hand, why should we offer protectionism to the airlines?

Meanwhile freight, commuter and regional rail outside the limited HSR corridore rots on 19th century alignment.

And you've previously advocated that you'd like Inland Rail to continue to use 19th century alignments. In any case, no one is advocating the ignoring of commuter rail. Diverting half the $20bn annual road funding over the next decade would allow the completion of the HSR as well as Cross River Rail, Melbourne Metro, and whatever Sydney happens to think they want to do at the time.

Canberra (AP) - Sydney should be upgraded to MSR and the track upgrade from Macurthur to Goulburn will benefit all current users of the line saving up to 1hr for freight services and 30min or so for southern highlands. Once proven successful, then extend to Newcastle (AP) again benefiting freight, commuter and intercity users. The same concept could then be extended in part to Wollongong and into the mountains. This would resolve the issues that have been documented and presented to the NSW govt last year, ie slow outdated interurban alignment's that is close to capacity.

Good money after bad. HSR Sydney to Canberra would prove more beneficial to all those parties, including freight which may have to contend with fewer passenger trains, and at least greater flexibility in the times of the passenger trains.

[#Metro]

There were also several billion people alive before the development of the internet.

Yes, but the internet serves a useful purpose and is profitable for people to do. ISPs make money and value as well. HSR?

In any well defined large political area, there tends to be one primary city and many smaller ones following a rough power law distribution. http://io9.com/the-mysterious-law-that-governs-the-size-of-your-city-1479244159 and it seems to me that will stay that way HSR or not.

If you want development, post a cheque. In addition, how much development would be genuinely new development and how much would be simply existing development moved out of current cities? If it is mostly the move of existing development, we are not paying for an increase in productivity, we are just moving the deckchairs around at massive cost.

http://theconversation.com/boondoggle-or-best-thing-well-ever-do-what-to-make-of-high-speed-rail-13425

And we are hardly world-beaters in this country in estimating the value and viability of projects. The high speed rail projections are brought to you by the same firm responsible for the calamitous Lane Cove Tunnel, Sydney Cross City Tunnel and Brisbane Clem7 forecasts.

[#Metro]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2014/08/france-s-tgv

THEY are admired the world over for their sleekness, speed and sheer French chic. But the 480 high-speed trains (Trains à Grande Vitesse, or TGV) that radiate around France from Paris are struggling to remain in the black. Most of the lines are running at a loss and even the profitable ones are not earning enough to cover their cost of capital. This is forcing SNCF, France's state-owned railway, to consider taking the axe to what has been a rare symbol of French technical and business success.

SNCF boss Guillaume Pepy has pointed out how the rise of low-cost airlines in France has won them over half the air traffic at the expense of Air France. He sees no reason why TGVs should not be similarly squeezed as carriers such as easyJet, Ryanair and Vueling multiply their services in and around France.

Spend the money on improving PT in cities already. HSR is a hi-waste luxury IMHO. I need to see a decent BCR and NPV vs the alternatives before I change my mind on this one.

[#Metro]

Which HSR project makes money in the world?
http://theconversation.com/boondoggle-or-best-thing-well-ever-do-what-to-make-of-high-speed-rail-13425

The only review of the international experience with high speed rail, published by researchers at the University of Las Palmas in Spain in 2009, is sober reading. The average subsidy for the German, French, Spanish and Italian systems was calculated at over A$65,000 per seat, per year.

This is important because the reports out on Australian HSR are predictions or forecasts. The forecasters themselves may well be 'experts' but I would love to see them put their house as collateral on their own calculations. There is inherent uncertainty in any forecast/model (viz. Clem 7 etc) and so looking at how past projects actually performed is a good indicator of what we might be getting.

Why would this proposed project be any different to previous ones?

[The Reaper]

Spend the money on improving PT in cities already. HSR is a hi-waste luxury IMHO. I need to see a decent BCR and NPV vs the alternatives before I change my mind on this one.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/files/HSR_Phase_2_Keyfindings_ES_Booklet.pdf

The economic benefit cost ratio (EBCR) calculates the ratio of the present value of
benefits to the present value of costs. When calculated using a discount rate of four per cent,
the ECBR is 2.5 for Sydney-Melbourne and 2.3 for the whole network.

The economic net present value (ENPV) of costs and benefits associated with a program
of investment in the preferred HSR system would be $70 billion for Sydney-Melbourne
and $101 billion for the network as a whole, calculated using a discount rate of four per cent
a year until the start of construction in 2027 (financial year 2028), and expressed in $2012.

The economic results remain positive under a range of changed assumptions. When calculated
using a seven per cent discount rate, which represents a higher hurdle rate for judging
economic performance, the EBCR would be 1.1 and the ENPV would be $5 billion.

http://www.ara.net.au/UserFiles/file/Publications/14-10-27%20REPORT-The-Potential-Impacts-of-High-Speed-Rail-to-Eastern-Australia%20(1).pdf

And when these guys say the costs were massively overestimated, then the BCR and NPV will only increase.

[#Metro]

The economic results remain positive under a range of changed assumptions. When calculated
using a seven per cent discount rate, which represents a higher hurdle rate for judging
economic performance, the EBCR would be 1.1 and the ENPV would be $5 billion.

4% seems rather low especially for a risky project like this.
1.1 is razor thin margin, same for the benefit.

http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/project/cross-river-rail/crr-eis.pdf

For example, Cross River Rail.

In terms of overall project benefit, the EIS identified that the project would deliver a net
present value (NPV) of $2.3 billion with a benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 1:42. The EIS also
predicted that this BCR would increase to 1:63 when the wider economic impacts are included.

[#Metro]

The average cost is $114 bn / 1748 km = $65 million / kilometre. 

To put this in contrast, Gold Coast Light Rail was about $40-50 million per kilometre. The first stage of busway was about $50 million/km but the ROW was already aquired. Heavy rail in SEQ is routinely about $100-200 million per kilometre and some complex sections of busway around $465 million/km.

I realise that in outback areas acquisition costs are lower, but I will have a look into how they propose this train to enter the CBD areas because that is going to be pricey and the overall cost will be extremely sensitive to that. Building any class A ROW in urban areas is extraordinarily expensive.

[The Reaper]

4% seems rather low especially for a risky project like this.
1.1 is razor thin margin, same for the benefit.

http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/project/cross-river-rail/crr-eis.pdf

For example, Cross River Rail.

In terms of overall project benefit, the EIS identified that the project would deliver a net
present value (NPV) of $2.3 billion with a benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 1:42. The EIS also
predicted that this BCR would increase to 1:63 when the wider economic impacts are included.

I agree that 1.1 is a thin margin, and the benefit small, but they are both suitable for a project proceeding in their own right. However, when the ARA's/Aurecon's work is taken into account these would both increase significantly.

I also like Cross River Rail's BCR and NPV - I am pro-CRR. In the wise words of la nina del tacos, "¿por que no los dos?".

[#Metro]

My preference is to fix city transport needs first. Corridor preservation I am not opposed to.

The average cost is $114 bn / 1748 km = $65 million / kilometre.

The engineering requirements on this is very very demanding, you would have power supply, overhead wires, electrical substations spaced every few km or so, special track, to get a decent frequency you need a train spaced every half hour along the track between Brisbane and Melbourne.

We can make a rough estimation of what the rollingstock costs are by doing a thought experiment.

We know that the line is about 1748 km in length. How many trains are on the line? Let's assume there is no stopping (maximum best case ceiling value scenario).

A train is sitting at the station in Brisbane at distance to terminus of +0 m. So that is the first train.
The train might travel at 225km per hour, so in one hour down the line we know that there is a second train at +225km down the line. Now we said half hour frequency, so there must be another train in between these two points at 225 km/2 = +112.5 km down the line.

So now we can work out how many trains we need at minimum. 1748 km divided by 112.5 km =  15.53 trains at any given time, round up to 16, between Brisbane and the end of the line (presumably Melbourne).

Now we need trains also coming back up the line as well, assume 30 min frequency. So we just take the number we just got and x2.

16 x 2, and then add say two vehicles for spares, which gives 34 trains.

Now, how much does one train cost? Maybe 50 million? So the total cost for rollingstock would be trains x cost, which is 34 trains x $50/million = $1.7 BILLION in today's costs. To put that in perspective, that's roughly how much GCLRT cost trams included.

The yearly patronage on this thing is around 80 million or so as the 'central value'. That's about the same as the number of people that is carried by Brisbane Transport in the whole of Brisbane at the moment.

I will concede that I don't know what the year 2065 will look like, but it seems (a) an awfully cheap track, (b) awfully high patronage, higher than the entire bus usage of Brisbane at the moment and (c) mind-blowingly expensive to just buy the trains, (d) really unlikely to generate profits. This of course depends on air travel ticket prices too, which are ridiculously cheap ($

Reducing frequency to hourly would cut rolllingstock costs in half but then it would add a lead waiting time of an hour or so, reducing competitiveness for air. I hope the fares are going to be $100 or less per pax.

References
https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2010/files/other_001_a_profile_of_high-speed_railways.pdf

[#Metro]

I've just checked flight from BNE - SYD using a trip aggregator site where you search deals on flights.

There are about 41 flights departing per day on BNE -SYD over a 15 hour period (5am -8pm; Sydney Kingsford Smith has a curfew), the frequency is about a plane every 30 minutes (often two planes operated by rivals take off at the same time, I count this as one event for frequency purposes).

In contrast, HSR is going to do this:

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/files/HSR_Phase_2_Keyfindings_ES_Booklet.pdf

Services   would   typically   operate   18   hours   per   day   for   365   days   per   year.   Service   frequencies   would   
typically   be   at   least   hourly,   increasing   as   demand   grew   to   reach   peak    period   service   frequencies   in   
2065,   as   shown   in   Table ES-3.   

It is talking about the peak period, because the all day frequencies are not that great IMHO. Perhaps hourly or half hourly trains? If airlines reduce frequency as a response then everybody is worse off because now all users may have to wait up to 1 hour for their plane or train, whereas now frequencies ex airport are good. The study seems to have quietly not included this possibility in the cost/benefit calculations, that air pax may be waiting longer;the effect would be to reduce the NPV as well...

So, we are being asked to pay $114 BN for something that may come hourly or half hourly, which is no better than what planes do already, at a cost that is probably not that different to airlines now, using track that seems unbelieveably cheap and patronage on a level that rivals that generated by local PT currently . Remember, that $114 BN is public funds as well so there is an opportunity cost on that too.(Health, Education, Other transport etc).

I don't know. I'm happy to be wrong, but its not looking good. It looks a lot like wasteful duplication and one has to consider spending the money on better air travel scenarios too (i.e. build airports in these regional cities).

[Gazza]

I think if you read more fully its each stopping pattern running at least hourly. The HSR line has several overlaid.

Why are we talking about 'waiting times' for planes versus trains anyway? planes are 100% prebooked, and if you try and do it the day before or on the day, you pay dearly for it.
Nobody 'waits' for a plane, you just turn up at the airport based around your booking, and your booking really comes down to what is important to you...cheapest flight, cheapest day, when you want to be somewhere.
Or points, you might take a flight an hour later if it gives you more points.
I don't think many passengers say "Hmm, should I get the 6:30 flight, or the 7:00 flight".
If you had enough notice, and both had the same fares and seat availability, you might lean one way or the other, but it's rare many passengers get that choice.

Also, If you miss a plane, its game over till you can rebook, so the concept of the 'worst case scenario wait' like when you miss a low frequency bus works completely differently.

This is differen to normal concepts of frequency on public transport. I may choose to travel on the day, heck i might even decide at 5 minutes notice I need to travel and will leave for the station there and then. If i miss a train, i can just get the next one, unless its the last of the night.

Chalk and cheese.

[#Metro]

I find it useful. It gives one more flexibility. Particularly if one travels from the Airport straight after work on a Friday, one usually wants to get where they're going before it is really really late.

Its not fatal, but it is a reduction times one could go IMHO. Also, if it is being used for long distance commuting purposes (which was what was being alluded to in previous posts, along the lines that one could live out at Shepparton and catch the train to Melbourne and then commute back during the day) then it may well be valid then to include frequency.

Second main reason was, where are these 'benefits' coming from to calculate the NPV? In most transport projects, the main benefits are generated from travel time savings or the service offering a cheaper ride. Is this thing actually saving time compared to what we have now?? Given that there are only around 2 profitable HSR lines in the world, why would we think that this would make money also?

Finally, a side thought. Is there room in Australia for two main domestic airline carriers. Now throw a train in the mix. What's going to collapse first, the airline or the train operator??

It seems like a lot of money to provide services that are already being provided for whence there is no actual problem. Is there really an airline capacity problem between Mel-Syd-Bne?? If there is, just get a bigger plane. Or another Airport (Melbourne has 2, Sydney will get a 2nd). Or a runway extension (Brisbane).

[SurfRail]

There's no way this project would need to cost $114bn, which is the main problem with the AECOM report.

Doing it as cheaply as possible should yield a cost of around 50-60% of that based on what I have been reading.

My view still remains that $60bn of capital spent on intercity transport is a serious misallocation when those capitals are in desperate need of more rail capacity, particularly in the core (Brisbane BaT/CRR, Sydney SHC, Melbourne Metro).

[ozbob]

There's no way this project would need to cost $114bn, which is the main problem with the AECOM report.

Doing it as cheaply as possible should yield a cost of around 50-60% of that based on what I have been reading.

My view still remains that $60bn of capital spent on intercity transport is a serious misallocation when those capitals are in desperate need of more rail capacity, particularly in the core (Brisbane BaT/CRR, Sydney SHC, Melbourne Metro).

Agreed, we need to put our major cities on a proper transport footing first.

[The Reaper]

Now, how much does one train cost? Maybe 50 million? So the total cost for rollingstock would be trains x cost, which is 34 trains x $50/million = $1.7 BILLION in today's costs. To put that in perspective, that's roughly how much GCLRT cost trams included.

Your calculations look good, except there would probably be a higher number required due to additional peak services, so the total cost might be closer to $3bn. Although it's easy to get very excited about this number, remember that NGR is a $4.4bn contract for a number of trains that isn't even half the size of the QR fleet (although it also includes maintenance over 30 years).

I will concede that I don't know what the year 2065 will look like, but it seems (a) an awfully cheap track, (b) awfully high patronage, higher than the entire bus usage of Brisbane at the moment and (c) mind-blowingly expensive to just buy the trains, (d) really unlikely to generate profits. This of course depends on air travel ticket prices too, which are ridiculously cheap ($

It is actually very expensive track according to the AECOM report, which is why http://www.ara.net.au/UserFiles/file/Publications/14-10-27%20REPORT-The-Potential-Impacts-of-High-Speed-Rail-to-Eastern-Australia%20(1).pdf states:

We suggest that the opportunity to leverage overseas construction methodologies and approaches be considered so as to benefit from significant cost savings. Within such a philosophy we propose that internationally competitive rates of say AU$35 m per km might be considered for the Australian HSR with the total project delivered for approximately AU$63billion

The problem with small, isolated rail projects (or any infrastructure for that matter) is the relatively high project start-up costs. A project of this size and nature (like Inland Rail) would allow costs to be reduced due to the specialised workers and equipment having a long project life and continuity of work.

For the record, at $114bn I wouldn't support it either.

[The Reaper]

Agreed, we need to put our major cities on a proper transport footing first.

I would agree Ozbob, but when compared to road funding that's not how it works. There's no "we can either upgrade the Pacific Motorway, or we can duplicate the Gateway bridge. Choose one", it's do all, all the time. If this mentality was applied to public transport, then HSR and CRR, SHC, and Metro would all be built concurrently (or near enough to concurrently).

[ozbob]

The Independent --> First passengers on Japanese maglev train travel at speeds of 311 mph

[ozbob]

China.org.cn --> Bullet train between Urumqi- Hami launched

[ozbob]

Business Insider --> Japan's Groundbreaking Bullet Train Is Officially 50 Years Old

[ozbob]

Traveller --> What's the world's fastest passenger train?

[ozbob]

IRJ --> Chinese to study 2000km HS line in India