Fare Comparison and Graph : Eumundi to Brisbane QLD & Sydney to Morisset NSW

[Fares_Fair]

I don't think anyone is denying that rail is effective at transporting things (passenger or freight) long distance, but questioning why people need to live so far away from where they work.

And call on the public purse to more highly subsidise them choosing such unsustainable options relative to other people.

I see, so long distance travel is unsustainable.
How?
It makes use of existing infrastructure.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Stillwater]

It is nonsense to suggest that a significant proportion of the population of the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast (those who commute to Brisbane daily for work) and their families should live in Brisbane.  That would create a whole lot of nightmarish town planning and transport scenarios that would be too horrible to contemplate.  If the argument is that the Queensland Department of Mines should be located at Rockhampton, closer to the mines, and the the Department of Primary Industries relocate to Toowoomba, Forestry to Gympie etc (taking the jobs to where the people and customers are), that is worthy of some debate.

No, the hordes are not going to stop descending from the Sunshine and Gold coasts into the domain of Brisbaneites.  The issue is if the state government doesn't handle the passenger rail problems these people encounter correctly, they will jump in their cars and drive.  Many have done so.  Then the solution becomes six, lanes, eight lanes, 10 lanes on the Bruce Highway.  (Has anyone driven to the Gold Coast through Logan City of late?)  

To focus people's minds -- is the cost of building an extra two or four lanes on the Bruce Highway (drawing funds for its construction from all taxpayers) a better use of public funds than prudent expenditure on the Sunshine Coast Line?

[ozbob]

Folks, let's all take a breather here.  Long distance rail, as well as short trip bus are a characteristic of most public transport networks.  The further you travel the cheaper it becomes, this is a reality with most things, phone calls, super-size meal deals, aeroplane rides, and train trips.  Governments have a difficult task in that there is a fine balance between community needs, returns and services.  Inner city everywhere has frequency (although I do think there is room to move to decrease the flag fall component for zone 1 -2 trips (journeys)).  Outer limits don't have frequency, because the cost provision of services is greater and the returns (the loads) are lessened.  So it is a balance.  Lets work for improved outcomes for all.

[Gazza]

The further you travel the cheaper it becomes

Disagree with rail.

Look at the GC line versus shorncliffe. The Shorncliffe line has under 1/4 of the ROW to maintain, nor does it require a dedicated express track to bypass all stoppers.

It need less rollingstock to run, because the shorter distance, so you can turn trains around quicker and get more runs out of it. A GC train, once loaded, has to spend extra time running express, which is basically sunk driver labour and electricity  because it can't be picking up pax. Multiple million dollar trains can only do one run per peak.

Surely a basic passengers per kilometer stat tells you what would be cheaper to run.

QR doesn't get deals for 'buying lin bulk' like the other products you mentioned.Driver and guard costs are the main thing determining running costs, which are linear, per hour.

So therefore the cost effectiveness is passengers per hour carried by the line.

[ozbob]

There is a significant start up cost, hence the flagfall.  The reality is it is priced cheaper the further one travels.  This is the nature of the economy. There is economy of scale.  Have a look at most things in terms of services, goods and so forth. Bulk is cheaper.  

There is also the community need. Sometimes you have to think a little broader ...

[somebody]

I don't think anyone is denying that rail is effective at transporting things (passenger or freight) long distance, but questioning why people need to live so far away from where they work.

And call on the public purse to more highly subsidise them choosing such unsustainable options relative to other people.

I see, so long distance travel is unsustainable.
How?
It makes use of existing infrastructure.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

All motorised travel has a degree of unsustainability to it.

Substitute "resource intensive lifestyle options" if you don't like "unsustainable".

I'm a bit shocked you are mentioning "using existing infrastructure" as an argument though!  You passionately want the duplication.

The further you travel the cheaper it becomes

Disagree with rail.

Look at the GC line versus shorncliffe. The Shorncliffe line has under 1/4 of the ROW to maintain, nor does it require a dedicated express track to bypass all stoppers.

It need less rollingstock to run, because the shorter distance, so you can turn trains around quicker and get more runs out of it. A GC train, once loaded, has to spend extra time running express, which is basically sunk driver labour and electricity  because it can't be picking up pax. Multiple million dollar trains can only do one run per peak.

Surely a basic passengers per kilometer stat tells you what would be cheaper to run.

QR doesn't get deals for 'buying lin bulk' like the other products you mentioned.Driver and guard costs are the main thing determining running costs, which are linear, per hour.

So therefore the cost effectiveness is passengers per hour carried by the line.

There's a trade.  Travelling at a higher speed means less labour cost is incurred per km for example.  Of course, making the north line's trains sluggish (as well as the Ippy and Gold Coast) has a cost too.  Not to mention the opportunity cost of marketability.

[Fares_Fair]

I don't think anyone is denying that rail is effective at transporting things (passenger or freight) long distance, but questioning why people need to live so far away from where they work.

And call on the public purse to more highly subsidise them choosing such unsustainable options relative to other people.

I see, so long distance travel is unsustainable.
How?
It makes use of existing infrastructure.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

All motorised travel has a degree of unsustainability to it.

Substitute "resource intensive lifestyle options" if you don't like "unsustainable".

I'm a bit shocked you are mentioning "using existing infrastructure" as an argument though!  You passionately want the duplication.

The further you travel the cheaper it becomes

Disagree with rail.

Look at the GC line versus shorncliffe. The Shorncliffe line has under 1/4 of the ROW to maintain, nor does it require a dedicated express track to bypass all stoppers.

It need less rollingstock to run, because the shorter distance, so you can turn trains around quicker and get more runs out of it. A GC train, once loaded, has to spend extra time running express, which is basically sunk driver labour and electricity  because it can't be picking up pax. Multiple million dollar trains can only do one run per peak.

Surely a basic passengers per kilometer stat tells you what would be cheaper to run.

QR doesn't get deals for 'buying lin bulk' like the other products you mentioned.Driver and guard costs are the main thing determining running costs, which are linear, per hour.

So therefore the cost effectiveness is passengers per hour carried by the line.

There's a trade.  Travelling at a higher speed means less labour cost is incurred per km for example.  Of course, making the north line's trains sluggish (as well as the Ippy and Gold Coast) has a cost too.  Not to mention the opportunity cost of marketability.

Red comment.
You are taking my comment totally out of context, this is not a discussion about duplication.
I said that long distance travel makes use of existing infrastructure.

[Stillwater]

Oh, I give up.

[ozbob]

Oh, I give up.

Never fear Stillwater, still waters run deep ...  

I am very optimistic that the LNP has finally grasped the significance of the Sunshine Line upgrade, albiet staged but that is better than not doing anything.  Looking forward to the next few months.  Latest tip is Feb election ...

[somebody]

Oh, I give up.

Never fear Stillwater, still waters run deep ...  

I am very optimistic that the LNP has finally grasped the significance of the Sunshine Line upgrade, albiet staged but that is better than not doing anything.  Looking forward to the next few months.  Latest tip is Feb election ...

That's only 3 months away!  I thought they'd drag it out as long as they could.

[HappyTrainGuy]

And there lies the problem with using the current surban infrastructure to deliver long distance frequent services in the same bag. You can upgrade the NCL line all you want to have longer freight trains and more frequent services but it has to cost something. Longer trains frees up Nambour paths while at the expense of the Brisbane lines as longer crossing times for freights are introduced. Shorter freight trains can make Brisbane and surrounding paths more flexiable at the cost of Nambour losing paths. More services running express to/from Nambour eats up paths that could be used for more frequent services that can bring in more passengers.

[Gazza]

There is a significant start up cost, hence the flagfall.  

I'm still not seeing it.
Compare an IMU and an SMU.

They both get brought into service in the morning, pulled out again and sit idle interpeak (because this is Qld lol), go back into service in the arvo, then get pulled off and put to bed at night.
Why would there be any difference in the number of startups you need to do per trainset, wether it is IMU or SMU?

Except in fact, the IMU uses more labour hours, because it takes longer to position a train at a terminus 90km away versus 20km away. And I think there would be a slightly higher cost with prepping an IMU, due to having to clean and empty toilets.

The reality is it is priced cheaper the further one travels.  This is the nature of the economy. There is economy of scale.  Have a look at most things in terms of services, goods and so forth. Bulk is cheaper.  

Most things. Not everything. And not rail.

You mention air travel. You pay airport taxes and a part of the cost of the aircraft, which are fixed, then the cost per hour of running the plane is the variable. Therefore the longer you fly, the cheaper it becomes. To an extent. Almost.

BNE - MEL is $240  for a collective 4.6 hours of travel.
$52/hour.

BNE - LAX is $1438 for a collective 27 hours of travel.
$53/hour

Basically the same  

You mention (maccas) meal deals.
Well, that is more of a marketing gimmick to get people to buy more food than they are really hungry for (Like on phone plans, get people to use more data/calls than they would otherwise restrain themselves to = more money made in total, even if the margin is less)
But anyway, fixed costs are the store and deep fryer and the burger that comes with the meal, variables are labour and frozen food and drink and packaging.

With a larger meal, the labour costs are the same because scooping a large fries is just as fast as a small one, the food itself is cheap and makes up a small component of the final cost, and the packaging becomes more efficient as you get larger due to the mathematics of volume versus cardboard surface area.

There is also the community need. Sometimes you have to think a little broader ...

I've got no issue with intercity rail. As FF said, intercity commerce happens, people need to travel for various reasons etc.
What I do take issue with is trying to say that intercity rail is cheap to run, or should be 'cheap'.

I'm just not convinced that lines that long distance lines, require more infrastructure (above and below rail) but carry less pax, and are the most "peaky" could possibly be cheaper by any measure to run.
It is known that the least efficient bus services are peak hour rockets, and the most efficient ones are high frequency patronage services that work all day long.

Its completely different....
The act of just driving a train further is not an economy of scale.

Keeping a train heavily loaded all day long, is.
Running a freight train with more wagons behind the loco for the one crew, is.

[O_128]

 guess theres also the "why should I have to pay just as much as someone who chooses to live 100km from there workplace" this is for me the big deal. The biggest issue with the fares is that you arent getting what you payed for,

[Gazza]

There's a trade.  Travelling at a higher speed means less labour cost is incurred per km for example.  Of course, making the north line's trains sluggish (as well as the Ippy and Gold Coast) has a cost too.  Not to mention the opportunity cost of marketability.

Simple City A:

CBD-----------------------S--S--S--S--S--T

Simple City B:

CBD--S--S--S--S--T


Which city would have the least expensive rail network to run?

It is indeed cheaper to be running the train itself express rather than all stopping, but the trade-off is the express section is non productive.

Its a no brainer that the further you are sending the train, the harder you have to work to keep it attractive, and this reaches an extreme when you are talking about a HSR system, and what has to be done to make them effective and competitive.

[ozbob]

The start up cost is in establishing the service.  This is one of the reasons why I think Airtrain is getting off very lightly.

You quote air fares. I can find the complete reversal of your premise, my daughters regularly fly long haul.  It is a lot cheaper to fly long distances than shorter distances per km/route.

Why does a 375 g jar of peanut butter cost $4, a 500 g jar of peanut butter cost $4.95?  You are missing a very fundamental economic premise  ...  the start up cost.

[Gazza]

The start up cost is in establishing the service.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to establish a short haul service, because less trains are needed, and less track needs to be laid?

[ozbob]

Track yes, but in other respects no (in a general sense).  Crew have to be trained, trains built, stabling established and so forth.

Track costs are defrayed by other uses. Shorncliffe is a passenger line, the north cost line is a freight and passenger line.  The Ipswich line is a coal line ... oops  sometimes pass  .  This is where the amelioration of costs occur in a broad sense, the money that the Ippy makes is spread around for the Shorncliffe line, and dare I suggest the Ferny Grove line. The Sunshine Coast line is also making a motza (even though restricted in terms of train paths).  This is the community service obligation in action.  Rather than dilute the effort, build a stronger network over all.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Don't forget Cleveland. Its a dual gauge freight, coal and passenger line. If you want to dive into what line handles what prior to the split Acacia Ridge was the golden cash cow as PN injected millions into upgrading the facility only to find out they didn't own it and had to pay rent to QR (Along with anyone else using it - IIRC PNQ chose to truck freight between the two terminals to cut down on total rent using their road based freight company Toll) combined with Ipswich/Tennyson/Southbound lines taking the traffic of all the NCL/NSW freight/Fishermans Island freight and coal.

[Gazza]

Track yes, but in other respects no (in a general sense).  Crew have to be trained, trains built, stabling established and so forth.

But why would these 'start up costs' be higher for a short haul service than a longer one?

It's very mathematical in terms of what is needed to run a service to ensure the line is covered (I'm sure others could give more detail)

Do you not agree that the longer the service, the more resources it requires? Not just track capacity, but you need more trains and crews to run longer haul than short haul, and therein lies the cost.

Shorncliffe is a passenger line, the north cost line is a freight and passenger line.  The Ipswich line is a coal line ... oops  sometimes pass  Grin.  This is where the amelioration of costs occur in a broad sense, the money that the Ippy makes is spread around for the Shorncliffe line, and dare I suggest the Ferny Grove line. The Sunshine Coast line is also making a motza (even though restricted in terms of train paths).  This is the community service obligation in action.  Rather than dilute the effort, build a stronger network over all.

You may have noticed originally I compared Shorncliffe with the GC line (With Shorncliffe coming out on top), because both are pure pax services, and both have similar service levels. I was keeping variables to a minimum, such as the influence of much better frequency on other lines ,or another line making money from freight etc etc.

I can find the complete reversal of your premise, my daughters regularly fly long haul.  It is a lot cheaper to fly long distances than shorter distances per km/route.

I and I actually fly long haul myself, first person experience.

1365 km BNE-MEL comes in at 18c/km from the earlier post.

11540 km BNE-LAX comes in at 12c/km

What you had said is true, but cost per kilometre is the wrong measure to be using in this case, what is important is the number of hours it is in the air, because that is what they budget around.

I am going to go on the record and say that the main rationale for upgrading the North Coast Line is long haul freight - I frankly don't care if there is NO long distance passenger in this state at all and couldn't give a damn if the Sunlander, Tilt, etc were run off the nearest wharf to make an artificial reef.  Would rather see the track capacity used to haul 1.5km long rakes of containers and let the subsidised passengers ride Greyhound or Jetstar.

I wouldn't be that harsh, As FF said intercity commerce and trade is important.
I think the tilt has a future, and it would be nice if short workings between places like Cairns and Townsville, and Rocky and Gladstone were looked at, even if it is just speedy little 2 car diesel trains.

But I don't see the point of funding stuff like Sunlander, Westlander etc (Basically, trains that exist 'for the fun of the train journey' rather than transport, or even as 'welfare services') The Ghan and Indian-Pacific are privately owned and non subsidised, why not these?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Some people and communites still rely on them for a number of reasons. If you apply that logic elsewhere you might aswell say that QR should cut funding and axe the Gulflander. Demand also plays a part. There used to be the Sunlander and the Queenslander services before the killing of the Queenslander.... merger to form the Queenslander Class on the Sunlander. It will be a third Cairns tilt anyway running under the Sunlander banner as it has beds.

[ozbob]

But why would these 'start up costs' be higher for a short haul service than a longer one?

Never said that, start up costs except for the track etc.  are much the same.  Of course it costs more to run longer services, but this is offset by higher fares.  

A way of looking at it is this.  If Shorncliffe is 10x distance with a cost of Y to operate. and the Gold Coast is 100x it does not cost 10Y to operate.  It is not linear, as you have shown in your airfare example.  

The long distance passenger trains are very important communication links for rural communities, and are major economic drivers for tourism and so forth.  You can have your view but the reality is Governments have a broader community service obligation.   Supporting city residents with frequent public transport costs money, as does providing rural communities with some rail public transport.  Air transport for remote communities is also heavily funded by government, as are roads.

[Mr X]

Actually, you're talking about economies of scale  average fixed costs (such as infrastructure) are less per unit when the quantity of services using it are increased!

[somebody]

This is one of the reasons why I think Airtrain is getting off very lightly.

How do you figure this one?

[ozbob]

Obviously they did not have the high capital costs of buying trains, training crews, establishing maintenance facilities and the like.  Quite frankly $460 for a two person crewed train service is mates rates ... 

There is a school of thought that goes like this. Airtrain might be better off purchasing a number of true Airport EMUs and having luggage check in facilities at Roma St/Central. 

[somebody]

Obviously they did not have the high capital costs of buying trains, training crews, establishing maintenance facilities and the like.  Quite frankly $460 for a two person crewed train service is mates rates ... 

There is a school of thought that goes like this. Airtrain might be better off purchasing a number of true Airport EMUs and having luggage check in facilities at Roma St/Central. 

Do we know if this is the price for the return service or each way?  Even assuming this price is for the return journey, which is 1 hour Bowen Hills-Airport-Bowen Hills, and the crew cost $100/hour each, that still only absorbs half the cost, ignoring that the Bowen Hills terminators which would (presumably) apply in the alternate universe that there is no Airtrain, would need to run into Mayne, swap ends, dwell and run back to Bowen Hills.  If you say Airport-Roma St-Exhibition @100/hr/person, that's still around $300 crewing cost.

These estimates are very much on the high side.  So the cost has to include a fair bit of rolling stock leasing, and perhaps access fee for the track from Eagle Junction.

[ozbob]

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4582.msg36917#msg36917

Think it is each way.  50 pax puts them over the line.

[ButFli]

I don't think anyone is denying that rail is effective at transporting things (passenger or freight) long distance, but questioning why people need to live so far away from where they work.

It happens, for want of many reasons - changes in circumstances that resulted in living where I do and commuting to Brisbane to find work, with a young family settled into schooling on the Sunshine Coast.
True, I choose not to move to Brisbane and true I pay taxes for government to provide essential services.
Public Transport is an essential service.

You are taking the advantages of living on the Sunshine Coast but expecting everyone else to share the disadvantage - higher transportation costs.

Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast commuters already pay significantly less per km than Zone 1 and 2 commuters. Why should the inequality be increased?

[SurfRail]

I don't think anyone is denying that rail is effective at transporting things (passenger or freight) long distance, but questioning why people need to live so far away from where they work.

It happens, for want of many reasons - changes in circumstances that resulted in living where I do and commuting to Brisbane to find work, with a young family settled into schooling on the Sunshine Coast.
True, I choose not to move to Brisbane and true I pay taxes for government to provide essential services.
Public Transport is an essential service.

You are taking the advantages of living on the Sunshine Coast but expecting everyone else to share the disadvantage - higher transportation costs.

Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast commuters already pay significantly less per km than Zone 1 and 2 commuters. Why should the inequality be increased?

Tell you what - let's move the entire commuting population of the Gold and Sunshine Coasts to inner Brisbane, tomorrow, and see how it copes.

By coming into your city and working there, we are generating economic wealth without BCC and other entities having to pay a motza of outlays to accommodate us, meanwhile BCC's rates budget increases due to the value we impart to inner city office buildings.  There is a reason why BCC's residential rates are low - it has something to do with 70% of the rates income being commercial (the proportion is roughly inverted for most other councils in SEQ).  If anything, Brisbane residents are benefiting from us being there.

In any event, this discussion serves little purpose.  The practical alternative to not providing decent commuter rail is that people will drive instead of catching the train, which is even more costly.  People go where the jobs go.

[#Metro]

Tell you what - let's move the entire commuting population of the Gold and Sunshine Coasts to inner Brisbane, tomorrow, and see how it copes.

I know Urbanists like the idea of containment and consolidation but:

1. Is there ANY city in the world where this has actually been achieved?
2. How is this going to work politically and practically? It takes decades for land uses to change and there is no hope that the GC is going to pack up and move to BNE "just for public transport's sake". There are other factors like location, family, lifestyle, housing etc that people consider. So what is fair? Provide the service but CHARGE THEM.

[ButFli]

I don't think anyone is denying that rail is effective at transporting things (passenger or freight) long distance, but questioning why people need to live so far away from where they work.

It happens, for want of many reasons - changes in circumstances that resulted in living where I do and commuting to Brisbane to find work, with a young family settled into schooling on the Sunshine Coast.
True, I choose not to move to Brisbane and true I pay taxes for government to provide essential services.
Public Transport is an essential service.

You are taking the advantages of living on the Sunshine Coast but expecting everyone else to share the disadvantage - higher transportation costs.

Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast commuters already pay significantly less per km than Zone 1 and 2 commuters. Why should the inequality be increased?

Tell you what - let's move the entire commuting population of the Gold and Sunshine Coasts to inner Brisbane, tomorrow, and see how it copes.

It doesn't need to be inner Brisbane. It just needs to be closer. When you can honestly say that there is no inhabitable space available that is closer to your work than where you are, then you can start whinging about the lack of Government subsidy. This is not an inner-suburbs v outer-suburbs debate. This is about people living in one city and expecting significantly-below-cost transport to another. If you are demanding cheaper transport from Eumundi to the CBD then this is exactly what you are doing.

This is not a crusade against people commuting from the Gold and Sunshine Coasts to Brisbane. It is a crusade against privatising gains but socialising losses.

[ozbob]

Actually, you're talking about economies of scale  average fixed costs (such as infrastructure) are less per unit when the quantity of services using it are increased!

Indeed, which is the compelling reason to make better use the asset with improved frequencies of service.

[Fares_Fair]

Actually, you're talking about economies of scale  average fixed costs (such as infrastructure) are less per unit when the quantity of services using it are increased!

Indeed, which is the compelling reason to make better use the asset with improved frequencies of service.

Hear, hear.
On the Sunshine Coast, rail duplication can achieve (allow) that.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Gazza]

The long distance passenger trains are very important communication links for rural communities, and are major economic drivers for tourism and so forth.  You can have your view but the reality is Governments have a broader community service obligation.   Supporting city residents with frequent public transport costs money, as does providing rural communities with some rail public transport.  Air transport for remote communities is also heavily funded by government, as are roads.

But I dont say, see the point of having both the Sunlander and the Tilt, because it's duplicating services. Why not just direct all the public funds towards the faster tilt, then have GSR or whatever run the Sunlander etc.
The tilt is worth having, because it serves more of a transport function (And it is half a day faster than the coach). Sunlander seems to just be a 'boondoggle' for train travel buffs, and doesn't deserve the public money like the tilt.

As for the Westlander, its 17 hours on the train versus 10 on the coach. The Coach also has higher frequency (2 Coaches per day versus 2 trains per week).
If someone in one of these communities needed the transport (Eg had to get to Brisbane for an emergency family situation) They'd take the faster and more frequent one.

Rural coaches do receive subsidies in Qld though, but naturally the buses would be cheaper to run then a loco and carriages.

[O_128]

I guess its how you look at it. to drive to the SC or GC you just drive through endless sprawl virtually the whole way, when you think about it these places may aswell be in the term brisbane. While I was in london I visited relatives who lived in henley on thames. 60km from Paddington but the difference was on the 50 min trip after 10 min we were out of london in the country side rather than suburbia. I paid 18 pounds for my ticket and had to transfer onto the henley branch. The trip from gatwick airport to reading cost a whopping 32 pounds 

[SurfRail]

The long distance passenger trains are very important communication links for rural communities, and are major economic drivers for tourism and so forth.  You can have your view but the reality is Governments have a broader community service obligation.   Supporting city residents with frequent public transport costs money, as does providing rural communities with some rail public transport.  Air transport for remote communities is also heavily funded by government, as are roads.

But I dont say, see the point of having both the Sunlander and the Tilt, because it's duplicating services. Why not just direct all the public funds towards the faster tilt, then have GSR or whatever run the Sunlander etc.
The tilt is worth having, because it serves more of a transport function (And it is half a day faster than the coach). Sunlander seems to just be a 'boondoggle' for train travel buffs, and doesn't deserve the public money like the tilt.

As for the Westlander, its 17 hours on the train versus 10 on the coach. The Coach also has higher frequency (2 Coaches per day versus 2 trains per week).
If someone in one of these communities needed the transport (Eg had to get to Brisbane for an emergency family situation) They'd take the faster and more frequent one.

Rural coaches do receive subsidies in Qld though, but naturally the buses would be cheaper to run then a loco and carriages.

The Sunlander is being tilted, of course.

The problem is one of rollingstock.  Buying new rollingstock involves spending money - using existing locos and carriages that are already well and truly paid off is cheaper.

[Fares_Fair]

The long distance passenger trains are very important communication links for rural communities, and are major economic drivers for tourism and so forth.  You can have your view but the reality is Governments have a broader community service obligation.   Supporting city residents with frequent public transport costs money, as does providing rural communities with some rail public transport.  Air transport for remote communities is also heavily funded by government, as are roads.

But I dont say, see the point of having both the Sunlander and the Tilt, because it's duplicating services. Why not just direct all the public funds towards the faster tilt, then have GSR or whatever run the Sunlander etc.
The tilt is worth having, because it serves more of a transport function (And it is half a day faster than the coach). Sunlander seems to just be a 'boondoggle' for train travel buffs, and doesn't deserve the public money like the tilt.

As for the Westlander, its 17 hours on the train versus 10 on the coach. The Coach also has higher frequency (2 Coaches per day versus 2 trains per week).
If someone in one of these communities needed the transport (Eg had to get to Brisbane for an emergency family situation) They'd take the faster and more frequent one.

Rural coaches do receive subsidies in Qld though, but naturally the buses would be cheaper to run then a loco and carriages.

The Sunlander is being tilted, of course.

The problem is one of rollingstock.  Buying new rollingstock involves spending money - using existing locos and carriages that are already well and truly paid off is cheaper.

Good point SR. 

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Tilts also don't transport your car, provide sleeping facilities, wash facilities (Only on the CTT) and carry goods to some locations.

[somebody]

Tilts also don't transport your car, provide sleeping facilities, wash facilities (Only on the CTT) and carry goods to some locations.

I thought they got rid of the motorail service?  Or did they bring it back?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Its been back since April. Its only on selected services without the side doors attached.

Sunlander:
Effective from Tuesday 26th April 2011, Motorail has recommenced on The Sunlander to a revised schedule of 3 services per fortnight between Brisbane and Cairns in each direction:

   Northbound: Tuesday & Sunday one week and Thursday the second week
   Southbound: Thursday one week and Saturday and Tuesday the second week. Please contact Queensland Rail Travel on 1800 TRAINS (872 467) for information on the available dates for Motorail bookings on The Sunlander.

Scheduled maintenance

Due to scheduled maintenance to improve the overall wagons used on this service, Motorail will not be available on The Sunlander services from 31 January to 9 February 2012.
Off Peak schedule

For travel in the period between the 10 Feburary to 29 March 2012, the Motorail service will be reduced to one service per week in each direction.

Motorail will only be on The Sunlander services departing Brisbane on Tuesdays and departing Cairns on Thursdays during this period before reverting back to the 3 services per fortnight schedule.


Spirit of the Outback
Following engineering modifications, Motorail on Spirit of the Outback recommenced from Brisbane Tuesday 17 May 2011 and from Longreach Thursday 19 May 2011. Motorail will be available in both directions twice a week, Tuesdays and Saturdays from Brisbane and Thursdays and Mondays from Longreach.
Off Peak schedule

For travel in the period between the 31st January 2012 and the 29th March 2012, the motorail service will be reduced to one service per week in each direction.

Motorail will only be on the Spirit of the Outback services departing Brisbane on Tuesdays and departing Longreach on Thursdays during this period before reverting back to the 2 services per week schedule.

[Gazza]

Tilts also don't transport your car, provide sleeping facilities, wash facilities (Only on the CTT) and carry goods to some locations.

Yeah, but the point I'm making is, why does the Government have to be in those businesses?
Indeed they are being tilted, but honestly, they could have used the extra sets to do a 7 day per week tilt service instead