High Speed and Fast Rail

[#Metro]

As I said in another thread: East coast HSR is not only about Capital to Capital, it is also about Capital to Regional and Regional to Regional.

The general rule of thumb for HSR is 3.5hrs will get approx 50-50 distribution between HSR and Air. 3hrs and less gives HSR a majority mode share.

I am not so interested in rapid rail being used to compete against planes in the Australian context.

If other people want that, good for them. The sole exception to this may be Sydney-Canberra. Maybe.


I am more interested to see what it can do for City - Regional areas where it can compete against motorways and generate very

high patronage getting workers to work. Marchetti's constant suggests a travel time budget of 1 hour per day. This implies a good

application for rapid rail is 0.5 hours x 200 km/hr speed = 100 km range or 0.5 hours x 250 km/hr speed = 125 km range.

This puts high volume commuter applications of regional rapid rail's useful range at around 100 - 150 km. from a CBD.


This is perfect for regional commutes to a CBD and would finally put the brakes on never-ending motorway expansion.

Over these shorter distances, there is no competition with planes at all. Patronage would be far higher as it would capture peak

hour workers. Costs to construct would be less because the line and infrastructure to maintain would be very much shorter than a

National HSR.

Sunshine Coast Daily --> Fisher candidate calls for high-speed rail

Ozbob, at least the most difficult part - getting the politicians on board - seems to have been accomplished!

Support for Hi-Speed option from Brisbane - Gold Coast from Ciobo and from Sunshine Coast - Brisbane CBD.

Regional Rapid Rail could be a good competitor to never ending upgrades of the Pacific Motorway and Bruce Hwy/Gateway.

Marchetti's constant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marchetti%27s_constant

[tazzer9]

I don't support HSR at a national level. None of these are particularly compelling or specific reasons to have HSR. For example, plane capacity. If there is an issue, buy a bigger plane.

HSR isnt about Brisbane-sydney, sydney - melbourne air routes.   Its about stuff like coffs harbour - sydney air routes.   Its not about the end destinations, its about where it stops in the middle.   One you take into account boarding times for air travel, something like coffs harbour to sydney is faster on HSR. 

A good starting point for HSR would be Newcastle to Canberra via sydney.  Something like that you could share tracks between express services, which would compete with planes, and stopping services, in which would compete with car and legacy rail.   

Just remember that cars and air travel are only going to get more expensive. To the point that air travel it will only be used a trunk routes over long distances.

[verbatim9]

I don't support HSR at a national level. None of these are particularly compelling or specific reasons to have HSR. For example, plane capacity. If there is an issue, buy a bigger plane.

HSR isnt about Brisbane-sydney, sydney - melbourne air routes.   Its about stuff like coffs harbour - sydney air routes.   Its not about the end destinations, its about where it stops in the middle.   One you take into account boarding times for air travel, something like coffs harbour to sydney is faster on HSR. 

A good starting point for HSR would be Newcastle to Canberra via sydney.  Something like that you could share tracks between express services, which would compete with planes, and stopping services, in which would compete with car and legacy rail.   

Just remember that cars and air travel are only going to get more expensive. To the point that air travel it will only be used a trunk routes over long distances.

I agree its about building regional hubs to take infrastructure pressure off our big cities.

[ozbob]

The Conversation --> Delays at Canberra: why Australia should have built fast rail decades ago

[#Metro]

HSR isnt about Brisbane-sydney, sydney - melbourne air routes.   Its about stuff like coffs harbour - sydney air routes.   Its not about the end destinations, its about where it stops in the middle.   One you take into account boarding times for air travel, something like coffs harbour to sydney is faster on HSR. 

A thought experiment can test this idea. Elimination can separate out what is essential (purpose) from what is not essential, but nice to have (benefit).

1. If a HSR network were built that connected capital cities to other capital cities, but did not stop in the middle, it would still be useful.
Maybe not for those places skipped, but it would get you from one major city to another. We could say the cities are 'anchors'.

2. If a HSR network were built that did not connect to capital cities, but only connected towns in the middle, the proposal would be dead. It would be non-functional.

So the essential purpose of HSR are those capital cities. Which explains why people talk about Sydney-Melbourne etc rather than Dubbo-Melbourne etc. Proponents know that people in the cities are the ones who would be paying for HSR through tax and so it would have to be most attractive to them. And people in capital cities are probably wanting to go to other capital cities not smaller inland places.

Distances are continuous, so there isn't a clear cut between national HSR or regional rapid rail. But I think the essential feature of RRR is that is transports the ordinary worker. This sets up a neat test: will it transport the ordinary worker on their daily commute?

The ordinary worker test implies a 1 hour time budget for travelling in the day (roughly).

So I would probably lend support to RRR broadly in these bands:

200 km/hour train x 0.5 hours = 100 km from CBD
250 km/hour train x 0.5 hours = 125 km from CBD
300 km/hour train x 0.5 hours = 150 km from CBD
350 km/hour train x 0.5 hours = 175 km from CBD

This isn't exact as some people have higher budgets (say 45 mins to work etc) but the general concept should be clear.

A 200 km circle around a capital city seems to be the limit here.

Beyond that the travel time budget for daily commuting is exhausted and the service will then be more attractive to leisure and business travellers rather than the ordinary worker going to work 5 days per week. Leisure trips or business trips are generated at a lower rate than trips to work, which implies the patronage for a worker focused RRR service would generate higher patronage.

It is probably fair to say also that leisure and business travellers are less sensitive to time delays.
Often most of the day is written off for travels. For workers, this is not so.

[Stillwater]

Forget about using your go-card for HSR journey from the God Coast to Brisbane, for instance.  Fare to the extremity of the Brisbane and region PT network is about $23.  Expect to pay twice that for HSR (because, most likely, it will be operated by the private sector).  What 'average worker' on the Gold Coast or Toowoomba is going to be paying 100 bucks a day to get to and from work in the city?

[#Metro]

Forget about using your go-card for HSR journey from the God Coast to Brisbane, for instance.  Fare to the extremity of the Brisbane and region PT network is about $23.  Expect to pay twice that for HSR (because, most likely, it will be operated by the private sector).  What 'average worker' on the Gold Coast or Toowoomba is going to be paying 100 bucks a day to get to and from work in the city?

This isn't quite right. It doesn't have anything to do with private/public ownership. Brisbane has private ferries and public buses and they charge the same fare. Even the Airtrain is not a good example - it is privately owned track but public servants drive the train. I would think much of the Airtrain fare cost is payments to QR.

In the Brisbane case, we all know why fares are high. It has something to do with an organisation that has an acronym that starts with 'B' and ends in 'C'. 

Charges exist because things cost money - drivers want to be paid, train manufacturers have to be paid for the vehicle, banks or bond-holders need to be paid and there isn't enough to do everything.

Speed saves operating cost because fewer vehicles are required and the time to travel is shorter, which means labour costs are also less. In addition to that, an upgraded line could be DOO which would reduce costs further.

The main shift in my thinking is that services should be aimed at the ordinary worker. And further, that cars and motorways are what the trains should be competing against, not planes. This approach maximises patronage, minimises construction costs (line length is shorter) and you could also throw in land value capture and TOD in that too.

[Stillwater]

^^Then you are not talking about HSR or VFT.  You are talking more along the lines of V/Line (to Ballarat, Bendigo etc.)

https://www.vline.com.au

[#Metro]

The words are a problem. I call it Regional Rapid Rail so it doesn't have any 'baggage' problems around it.

If you look at the article Ozbob has posted from The Conversation
https://theconversation.com/delays-at-canberra-why-australia-should-have-built-fast-rail-decades-ago-57733

It is talking about problems within cities and around them (ordinary worker test). That is a separate thing to leisure and business travellers going between capitals who are on planes.

We have even more urban and regional challenges than we did three decades ago. Sydney and Melbourne are each facing rapid population growth and will need to avoid the damaging consequences of urban sprawl and car dependence. Both cities will need to redirect growth inwards, to brownfield and greyfield sites.

Another consideration is how to disperse the population into regional cities, so these areas can also benefit from improved economic activity. Fast rail can potentially help regional cities become part of a "mega-metropolitan" economic region.

For example, a 350 km per hour service connecting Melbourne with Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo and Warragul would transform these provincial centres into the equivalent of Melbourne's middle-ring suburbs, where 30-minute commutes are the norm.

It is very clear that there are two intents here. First is extending the 'Metropolitan' area around cities within that fuzzy 200 km circle I talked about. The second is trying to have a showdown with air traffic between capital cities. I see the first aim as workable, and the second one, not.

The success in patronage growth that V/line has experience when it introduced fast trains also gives me confidence that patronage would be very good for services aimed at the ordinary worker.

[ozbob]

Twitter

Anthony Albanese ‏@AlboMP now

Just gave Notice of Intention to present High Speed Rail Authority Bill to Parliament seconded by @SharonClaydon 🚄

[#Metro]

^ Maybe he should fund upgrades to Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast line rapid rail.

If it gets too close and real, he will backpedal!

[ozbob]

FYI

VICE

A new conversation about the future of rail for Victoria

>> http://vicerail.com/a-new-conversation/

[Stillwater]

Maybe we could have 'QuINCE' -- Queensland Inter-City Network Express 

[ozbob]

All states could adopt the generic PITS-Rail   

[Gazza]

A thought experiment can test this idea. Elimination can separate out what is essential (purpose) from what is not essential, but nice to have (benefit).

1. If a HSR network were built that connected capital cities to other capital cities, but did not stop in the middle, it would still be useful.
Maybe not for those places skipped, but it would get you from one major city to another. We could say the cities are 'anchors'.

2. If a HSR network were built that did not connect to capital cities, but only connected towns in the middle, the proposal would be dead. It would be non-functional.

What about option 3. A HSR line that connects a capital city to a town or city in the middle.
For example Melbourne to Albury/Wodonga, or Sydney to Newcastle?

[#Metro]

What about option 3. A HSR line that connects a capital city to a town or city in the middle.
For example Melbourne to Albury/Wodonga, or Sydney to Newcastle?

REx flies from Melbourne to Albury. It takes about 1 hour.

I remember having to come back from Mackay (I think - can't remember exactly) after it became impossible to take the tilt train back (due to floods cutting the line). The plane took of from the Airport, landed at another airport about half an hour later, took on more pax, and then took off again.

A plane could take off, land in the intermediate city, take off again and land in the next capital. You don't need HSR for that.

The fact that many of these regional areas also have air connections to capital cities, and haven't become large commuter cities also raises serious questions about whether these regional cities really would take off with massive development if connected to HSR. Many are already connected by air and haven't done so, so why would a train stimulate it differently to a plane?

[Gazza]

REx flies from Melbourne to Albury. It takes about 1 hour.

Does the plane land in the CBD?

[#Metro]

Does the plane land in the CBD?

Albury Airport is about 3km from the city centre.
Melbourne Airport is about 11.7 km from the city centre.

Generally leisure and business travellers aren't as time sensitive as commuters,
so the travel from the airport to the city centre isn't a big deal.

You wouldn't build HSR just because of that. Most people don't live in the CBD also, so they do accept that they have to travel anyway.

[Gazza]

business travellers aren't as time sensitive as commuters

Righto.

You wouldn't build HSR just because of that. Most people don't live in the CBD also,

You don't build HSR for any one purpose.
Most people don't live in the CBD, but the phyiscal location of CBDs and the natural focus of transport networks makes reaching the CBD the simplest of all public transport journeys.

so they do accept that they have to travel anyway.

But the lost time represents an economic cost, which is why HSR systems have been built.

[#Metro]

Most people don't live in the CBD, but the phyiscal location of CBDs and the natural focus of transport networks makes reaching the CBD the simplest of all public transport journeys.

I don't believe it is compelling enough to warrant a national HSR network just because people don't want to travel to the airport, which is a few km away.

But the lost time represents an economic cost, which is why HSR systems have been built.

And a far smaller cost than HSR IMHO.

A this point, I am absolutely against national HSR. Alan Davies of The Urbanist blog has gone through many of the arguments.
Sole exception might be Canberra - Sydney, but even there I am extremely skeptical.

We have an air industry that works well, and I don't see the need to fix something that isn't broken.

[ozbob]

Daily Mail --> The summer holiday routes in Europe where it's faster to travel by TRAIN instead of a plane

[ozbob]

Twitter

Anthony Albanese ‏@AlboMP 9 seconds ago Canberra, Australian Capital Territory

About to hold press conference on Govt failure to back High Speed Rail

=====================



=====================

^

[ozbob]

Rail Express --> High Speed Rail takes back seat as Turnbull pulls election trigger

The next election will be a referendum on the Australian Building and Construction Commission, rather than high speed rail, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has indicated.

Turnbull announced on Tuesday he would recommend the Governor General dissolve both houses of Parliament and call a double dissolution election for July 2.

His announcement comes a week after the prime minister's plans for high speed rail were splashed across front pages throughout the country.

But the ABCC – a commission targeting union corruption in the construction industry – should be the main focus on July 2, the PM said.

"When we go to election, the Australian people will decide whether there should be an Australian Building and Construction Commission," Turnbull said.

"You see, a double dissolution election is about giving the people their say."

Turnbull is able to call for the double dissolution thanks to the Senate's second rejection of the Coalition's bill to reinstate the ABCC.

The ABCC was originally created by the Howard Government in 2005, before being abolished by the Gillard Government in 2012.

Turnbull's bill to bring back the watchdog was passed by the House of Representatives, but was rejected twice by the Senate, with the second rejection coming on Monday, 36 votes to 34.

A day later, Turnbull confirmed he would request a double dissolution.

"After the budget, I will advise the Governor General to dissolve both houses of parliament and I will advise him to call an election on the second of July," he told the House of Representatives on Tuesday.

"The Governor General will consider that request – that advice – and he will make a decision.

"That is why I say I expect there to be an election on the second of July, but of course my constitutional duty ... is to advise the Governor General of my wishes in that regard, and it is up to him whether to agree to dissolve both houses, and issue the writs."

Opposition leader Bill Shorten said Labor was ready for an election.

"Despite all the tactics and the political games of the Government which has seen the Parliament with absolutely nothing to consider today, Labor is ready for this election," Shorten told reporters on Tuesday.

"The Labor Party has spent the last 900 plus days preparing our positive plans for Australia's future.

"Australians are getting increasingly sick and tired of a prime minister who dithers and does not deliver.

"Seven months ago, I believed that my job would be harder when Malcolm Turnbull replaced Tony Abbott, but I thought we'd be in for a better standard of politics.

"Instead in the last seven months plus, we've seen a prime minister slowly shrink into his job."

LOL  what a fuking mess is Oz polyticks ...

[Stillwater]

Understand the Federal Budget will include the announcement of the Commonwealth's 'Cities Policy'.  It remains to be seen whether this is yet another bauble dangled before the electorate as a voracious 24-hour news cycle continues to demand more gimmicks, sound bites and superficial amusement, or becomes something substantial that holds out hope to the states (in most cases virtual 'One City States') as to how the feds can get involved in develop the urban economic powerhouses of the nation, currently destined for costly traffic gridlock.  We should not forget that 70 per cent of Australians live in just 10 urban centres.

[ozbob]

Twitter

Political Alert ‏@political_alert 1 minute ago

Shadow Minister for Infrastructure @AlboMP is in Coffs Harbour and will discuss infrastructure funding & High Speed Rail at 4:30pm #auspol

=====================

[ozbob]

Domain --> High speed rail to push housing unaffordability out to the regions

[tazzer9]

A plane could take off, land in the intermediate city, take off again and land in the next capital. You don't need HSR for that.

Planes use most of their fuel during take off, thats the reason you don't see it happening often.  It also causes extra work for pilots, ATC, the airline and the airport itself.   Its also where it is most dangerous.   

[#Metro]

One way to fix the current issues within the city could be to focus instead on regional fast rail corridors linked to the major cities, rather than an intercapital high speed rail, Peter Thornton director of Transportation Associates Pty Ltd said.

These are areas "in which the majority of people live now and could live in the future, if their accessibility was improved" through major projects that would need substantial government funding, for instance reducing the travel times along the Sydney to Newcastle corridor.

Peter Thornton is on the $$$ with this statement IMHO.

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Qld section of national high-speed rail network should be fast-tracked

[ozbob]

Rail Express --> Delays at Canberra: why Australia should have built fast rail decades ago

[#Metro]

HSR/Plane
Comparison Excercise

Out of curiosity I had a look at London <---> Paris which has the choice of planes or trains (HSR).

I used the travel website wego.com.au and Voyages SCNF.com to make comparisons between planes and trains
for the 21st May 2016 (a Saturday).

HSR Trains took about 2 hours 30 minutes, and cost between AUD $98 (early morning, worst time) to around AUD$145 (X-rate is 1 EUR = 1.46 AUD). Most tickets seemed to be 85 EUR ($124 AUD).

In comparison, planes for either Paris CDG or Orly took about 1 hour 15 minutes, and cost between $75 - $221 AUD depending on the carrier. Most tickets seemed to be around $120 - $140.

It seems to be about the same in either plane or train. Possibly slightly cheaper in the plane. There difference between 1 hour in plane or 2 hours in train seems not that big a deal for a leisure trip, or perhaps even a business trip.

Interestingly, the cost using the wego.com.au website for the same date, and just replacing 'Paris' and 'London' with 'Melbourne' and 'Sydney' shows that flights are even cheaper than Paris/London. Jetstar/Tiger are doing trips for $50 - $90 a pop (not sure about baggage here)

Spending billions and billions on National HSR to provide (in the absolute best case) a service that costs the same and takes the same time (in reality: likely take longer) seems like a really really BAD deal. Especially when there is nothing wrong with the plane system we have and oil is at record lows (and likely to go lower due to competition from stronger renewables).

There is good reason to think that oil prices will fall further in the long term. The main reason for high oil prices IMHO are the OPEC cartel which restrict how much oil they make so that prices stay high. That has been going on for decades, but keeping prices high also means that alternative oil production is induced in places like the USA etc. So the cartel has fallen apart because now there are alternatives.

Renewables, in the long run, will also mean that there is a long-term reduction in demand. So what does one do with heaps of oil and not that many people to buy it? - discount the price further.

[tazzer9]

HSR/Plane
Comparison Excercise

Out of curiosity I had a look at London <---> Paris which has the choice of planes or trains (HSR).

I used the travel website wego.com.au and Voyages SCNF.com to make comparisons between planes and trains
for the 21st May 2016 (a Saturday).

HSR Trains took about 2 hours 30 minutes, and cost between AUD $98 (early morning, worst time) to around AUD$145 (X-rate is 1 EUR = 1.46 AUD). Most tickets seemed to be 85 EUR ($124 AUD).

In comparison, planes for either Paris CDG or Orly took about 1 hour 15 minutes, and cost between $75 - $221 AUD depending on the carrier. Most tickets seemed to be around $120 - $140.

It seems to be about the same in either plane or train. Possibly slightly cheaper in the plane. There difference between 1 hour in plane or 2 hours in train seems not that big a deal for a leisure trip, or perhaps even a business trip.

Interestingly, the cost using the wego.com.au website for the same date, and just replacing 'Paris' and 'London' with 'Melbourne' and 'Sydney' shows that flights are even cheaper than Paris/London. Jetstar/Tiger are doing trips for $50 - $90 a pop (not sure about baggage here)

Spending billions and billions on National HSR to provide (in the absolute best case) a service that costs the same and takes the same time (in reality: likely take longer) seems like a really really BAD deal. Especially when there is nothing wrong with the plane system we have and oil is at record lows (and likely to go lower due to competition from stronger renewables).

There is good reason to think that oil prices will fall further in the long term. The main reason for high oil prices IMHO are the OPEC cartel which restrict how much oil they make so that prices stay high. That has been going on for decades, but keeping prices high also means that alternative oil production is induced in places like the USA etc. So the cartel has fallen apart because now there are alternatives.

Renewables, in the long run, will also mean that there is a long-term reduction in demand. So what does one do with heaps of oil and not that many people to buy it? - discount the price further.

Your timing comparison isn't fair as you havent included the cost and time of getting to the airport. From memory heathrow express is still something like 40 minutes.    Trains also allow for more luggage.   

We shouldn't have high speed rail until we can get some higher speed regional rail.  Just look at how slow the new RRL in melbourne is and how stuffed up the telarah to dungog section of the NSW NCL. Not to mention the many problem areas in qld.   Until we can get those kind of routes running at 160km/h.  HSR is a dream.

[#Metro]

Your timing comparison isn't fair as you havent included the cost and time of getting to the airport. From memory heathrow express is still something like 40 minutes.    Trains also allow for more luggage.   

Not really. If you are on holiday, you have the time. It isn't the same value as being 1 hour late to work on Monday morning.
And one obviously one has to arrive a little early to wait for the train as well.

We shouldn't have high speed rail until we can get some higher speed regional rail.  Just look at how slow the new RRL in melbourne is and how stuffed up the telarah to dungog section of the NSW NCL. Not to mention the many problem areas in qld.   Until we can get those kind of routes running at 160km/h.  HSR is a dream.

Agree here. V/Line is doing quite well in Melbourne (apart from the recent rail wearing thing). A LOT can be done in QLD with the GC line and SC Line.

The reason why people don't catch PT is speed is too slow and services take too long to wait for. Car is better for them. Increase the speed and up the frequency, and people will use it.

[SurfRail]

Not really. If you are on holiday, you have the time. It isn't the same value as being 1 hour late to work on Monday morning.
And one obviously one has to arrive a little early to wait for the train as well.

It's a bit obtuse to suggest the only people travelling between the 2 largest cities in Europe are on holiday and time is not relevant for them.

Market share should make it clear who people prefer to travel with - Eurostar's combined rail-air market share is something like 75% of the total Paris-London market, and not too far behind on Brussels-London.

[tazzer9]

And one obviously one has to arrive a little early to wait for the train as well.

I have arrived 2 minutes before the scheduled departure of a long distance train. 

However I don't fully agree with v/line being all that great.  Its just they have an advantage of all the towns being far closer together than in other states.  Most v/line services are only around the 80-160km away from melbourne.      They have stuffed up monumentally when it came to the wheel wear, and the neglect of some  railway equipment and the shortcuts of the RRL.   They also seriously need to electrify the geelong line, even if its sole purpose is to release DMU's for other lines. 

Its the little improvements that will make the biggest differences to regional rail use in this country. 
To name a few that should have some priority:
Electrify geelong line
Proper full rebuild of the mildura line
Electrifying hamilton/broadmedow to dungog/gloucester and realigning and duplicating the current single track section.  (should be 150km/h minimum)
Full duplication and speed upgrades between muswellbrook and scone with speed and passing loop upgrades all the way to werris creek.
Upgrading and realigning the NSW main south between Macarthur and junee for 160 km/h the entire way.
Upgrading including track triplication,quadruplication and realigning the poor sections of the NSW main north (from strathfield all the way to werris creek.  Another bridge over the parramatta river)
Speed upgrades of orange to lithgow with some extra loops.
Beerburrum to Gympie north full duplication and realignment.
Acacia ridge to bromelton/beaudesert line branch duplication and a few stations added.
Toowoomba to brisbane new line.
Albury to seymour speed upgrades (160km/h minimum)

Speed realignment upgrades along the not as good single line sections of the NSW and QLD NCL's. 

These are just some of the upgrades that will mostly benefit freight, but will have such a good impact on the speed of passenger trains they will be considered worthwhile.

I also believe that the the murwillumbah line should be more or less rebuilt and extended north to connect with the gold coast line (but on a proper alignment with bridges that actually work, 120-150km/h running.  don't constrain it to the 100 year old route that closed) to service the northern rivers region, especially lismore, byron bay and the gold coast.   But this could also open up the possibility of a rail freight yard in the murwillumbah region, and if the gold coast railway line is ever gauge converted, it would be a seriously good intercity corridor.  (think of hourly very limited stops maroochydoore to casino services via the GC taking only 3 hours end to end)

Just remember that the murwillimbah XPT was the busiest long distance service in the nation and they have plenty of flat space in that region of a rail freight yard. 

[ozbob]

Rail Express --> Albanese presents high speed bill to Canberra

[ozbob]

The Border Mail --> Election gets high-speed rail talk moving very fast

[ozbob]

Popular Mechanics --> Super Trains: Plans to Fix U.S. Rail Could End Road & Sky Gridlock

[Gazza]

So I've been thinking a bit about the pro arguments for HSR.


Another poster said that Business travellers aren't time sensitive. No way!
When people visit my office from interstate/overseas, it's very much a full schedule for them to make the most of the limited time they have...you know, working through lunch and having sangas delivered to the boardroom etc etc. Every hour counts, particularly highly salaried people.

Occasionally I'll fly down to Sydney for the weekend if a cheap fare comes up, and in that case, whilst I am only there for leisure, I do value my time and try to make the most of it and squeeze stuff in.

For the regional development argument, again, I think it's actually a mixture of factors that strengthen the case. Yes, you can for instance fly to/from Albury to a Capital, but the frequency of flights each day isn't that flash.
If a HSR existed, all these regional centers would be "on the way" with quite a high number of trains passing each day.

Channelling a bit f Jarret Walker here, but what it comes down to for me is the access to the life of the city. I grew up in regional vic, and of course live in a capital city now, but I doubt I could go back to living in a small town, because they just don't offer the culture and activities that I enjoy.

If HSR existed, what I think that means is that a lot of people might consider moving to a regional city....you can live there, and enjoy the cheaper housing, less congestion, "quiet life"during the week etc, but with the knowledge that if you want a bit of excitement then all of that is really only now an hour away and a more direct for a larger portion of the population.
I mean, I wouldn't even base it on people living in a regional city and commuting via HSR each day.
I'd base it on regional cities being better places to live and work in their own right, but better connected to a world city.

To an extent, Vic sort of tried to do this with regional fast rail, but it was never quite fast enough in the end to do what I'm taking about.

What I'm getting at is that the reasons HSR might work in Aus may be different to the reasons other countries have built it, and it would be the confluence of multiple travel markets, rather than one particular travel pattern making it worthwhile.

[tazzer9]

While not HSR, what you describe is pretty much england.   Mostly small towns all interconnected by a decent rail service.
We need to stop focusing on HSR being a replacement to air travel for travelling between capital cities, but an advancement on the regional rail networks.
Victoria has attempted to do it, and it seems to work.   

They should build a newcastle to canberra HSR.  That would be the only one that would be financially viable any time soon.   And also have all the other long distance interstate trains use that trunk higher speed route, easily shaving 1 hour off all other journeys.