High-speed rail in Australia?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-11/government-to-release-high-speed-rail-report/4621880
A high-speed rail link along Australia's east coast would not be completed until at least 2053 and would cost $114 billion to build, according to a report to be released today. The study can be read here: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/index.aspx |
11:32pm 10/04/13 Permalink
As much as I'd love a bullet train, this comes up every few months and never goes anywhere. until another 'study' is done. You think this is bad, you should try livin in the ACT. Every election, a 'high speed rail link' is brought up, and never goes anywhere... I used to ignore it when I first lived here because it didn't interest me... been here for near 10 years now, and sure enough. every 2-3 years, without fail. |
11:54pm 10/04/13 Permalink
Isn't there a cheaper copper railing option we could use instead? We don't really need 350k/h right now.
|
11:56pm 10/04/13 Permalink
for 118b you could give everyone free flights for 50 years
|
12:47am 11/04/13 Permalink
This will never happen. It's not a cost effective form of travel. It's talked about time and time again.
|
01:11am 11/04/13 Permalink
This will never happen. It's not a cost effective form of travel. It's talked about time and time again. it isn't just about cost in the terms of money trains of this nature, on dedicated tracks are less likely to have delays, they are for the most part greener |
03:30am 11/04/13 Permalink
Anyone else gone on the Brisbane to maryborough train? When I was living in burrum heads I decided to catch it instead of driving to drop the girls off to their mums it was great when the train went 100 or more, but most of the trip is at a snails pace. This will be the same. Someone jumps the track crossing so this whole section will drop to 40km/h. This section buckled a little in the sun, instead of fixing it this 200km stretch better be changed to 40km/h, etc.
|
07:10am 11/04/13 Permalink
Why would you catch a train instead of a plane?
|
07:17am 11/04/13 Permalink
Tonnes of reasons!
- Train stations are generally located in the centre of town which is (in most cases) easier to get to then the airport. - Compare travelling by plane (security, boarding, etc) compared to getting on a train. You waltz up 5 minutes before the train leaves. - You can move about the train at all times instead of having to sit for 20 minutes while it takes off. - Don't need to turn electronics off. - Restaurant & dining carts! - Very real possibility of commuter towns hundreds of km from our major cities. This happens in France where people live 200km away and commute into Paris because it takes less than an hour. Forgetting the passenger side of things, imagine the things this would do for freight. It'd be quicker moving goods between our two major cities and greener (less trucks on the road). +1 high speed rail link! |
07:22am 11/04/13 Permalink
I like the idea but the price is a crazy pile of money - with all the whinging about how much the NBN is costing, imagine how bad the whinging would be with >$100B!
Compare travelling by plane (security, boarding, etc) compared to getting on a train. You waltz up 5 minutes before the train leaves.The nanny state thinking would quickly add security theatre to trains as well, I bet. |
07:33am 11/04/13 Permalink
lets focus on getting the nbn up and running before we look at pie in the sky like rail systems!
|
07:37am 11/04/13 Permalink
Why would you catch a train instead of a plane?That's what I said until I went to Europe and Japan and saw how good the rail network there is. It's sort of one of those things you have to experience before you really "get" it. But I will try to answer anyway: - The ability to get on a train in the middle of one city and get off in the middle of another is awesome. - None of that d***ing around that comes with going to airports. None of it. You go to the station 5 minutes before your train is scheduled to leave, walk on the train, and it departs. - They're all electric (I think?) so are less subject to the whims of gas prices (IIRC oil prices have accounted for the alleged reason behind most Qantas price hikes; fuel is a staggering part of their expenses). - The time difference door to door for many short leg trips is often not that different to actually flying. Getting to Sydney from Brisbane is technically a "one hour trip" but when you add in door to door time it is (for me) usually closer to 3-4. (I had a 9 hour door to door trip a couple weeks back because of canceled flights. That was a fun day.) - Safety. SNCF in France has never had a fatal accident apparently (in ~30 years of operation). I fly a lot and am comfortable doing it but I am certainly more comfortable getting on a train! There are other less tangible reasons: - more competition for airlines - making distant areas of the country more accessible. I really love this idea for Australia & think it would have untold benefits especially for miners and other people tasked to work in the middle of nowhere. Connecting outback towns to the cities via high speed rail (not what is really being discussed yet) I think would make those places much less isolated and reduce the need for young people in the country to feel they have to move into the city. - whether or not you believe we're going to run out of oil at some point, I believe the future of any large civilization requires effective, efficient mass transit. The later you leave it and the more you spend on road infrastructure, the harder and more expensive it will be later when you finally don't have a choice but to build it. - I personally hate seeing giant concrete roads all over the place. Being in places like Los Angeles - cities that have evolved due to the ready, cheap availability of gasoline - look horrible. Brisbane's recent trend to build giant roads everywhere (like the mess that now exists at the airport and at the ICB junction at Bowen Hills) makes me incredibly sad. This is totally a subjective aesthetic thing. My girlfriend thinks they look cool. (Note though that the one of the big things that makes them really useful in having a well developed local light rail/public transport system in the actual cities. You can't just drop high speed rail in and dust off your hands and say done - you need to be able to reliably get off the train at your destination and then go somewhere else.) Isn't there a cheaper copper railing option we could use instead? We don't really need 350k/h right now.haha This will never happen. It's not a cost effective form of travel. It's talked about time and time again.except in nations like France and Japan where it's profitable? SNCF makes like a billion dollars a year or something. People always b**** about the cost of rail like there's no cost to laying down bitumen and supporting the road network. We've spent like $5b on tunnels in Brisbane that have both (?) failed as commercial ventures. Is that "cost effective"? |
07:51am 11/04/13 Permalink
Why would you catch a train instead of a plane? like in euro... 1hr train ride to gatwick, luton or heathrow or 1hr bus to stansted. have to be there 90mins early. so you've already burnt 2.5hrs. train, get there 20mins before, walk on, sorted. |
08:03am 11/04/13 Permalink
Isn't there a cheaper copper railing option we could use instead? We don't really need 350k/h right now. hahaha Love it!!!! |
08:19am 11/04/13 Permalink
Said on the news that it would be scheduled to be completed in 2058.
Most of us will be DEAD by then. The money would be much better re-purposed as handouts now. |
08:39am 11/04/13 Permalink
Any ideas on a likely ticket price?
|
08:39am 11/04/13 Permalink
Train is awesome, I can train from central london to central paris and other euro places in a couple of hours. The high speed rail connecting all of the UK is super quick and good too. It's ace.
|
09:07am 11/04/13 Permalink
Why does it take so long to get s*** done these days?
I dont see how a nearly 50 year project would ever get done, how many different governments would that have to go through. Surely something like this could be done in closer to 10-15 years? So its a 45 year project, needed 1700k's of track. That works out to 720mtrs a week. Surely thats stupidly slow. |
09:07am 11/04/13 Permalink
I would love a HSR link between capital cities in Australia. It's just a matter of whether the benefits justify the costs.It's all about tunnels! But yeh. If you believe (like I do) that any real big civilization needs effective, fast mass transit (preferably one that is less dependent on fossil fuels) then it's more of a question of can you afford NOT to do it immediately. Because the problems of land acquisition and costs will only get significantly greater over time as more and more stuff gets built up and you deal with the infrastructure needs of now instead of tomorrow. |
09:10am 11/04/13 Permalink
Another reason why it's awesome (at least in Europe, maybe not here) is that getting a train means you can actually see parts of the country you're in. We did Zurich to Paris and it was a highlight of the trip even though we were on a train.
Another one - no stupid f*****g around with baggage. Plenty of spaces to put your big bags down, no restrictions on 1 carry on that's is X Y dimension and no heavier than Z kilograms. Also, reasonably affordable first class experiences too. We did the Italian high speed train from Rome to Bologna in first class as it cost like 50 euro compared to 20 euro. Big comfortable ass chairs, better choice of food, etc. |
09:39am 11/04/13 Permalink
2053? Will we still even need trains in 2053? We'll probably have teleporters and s*** by then.
|
09:44am 11/04/13 Permalink
40 years construction... that's means it needs to survive at least 13 successive federal elections. Never gonna happen.
|
09:54am 11/04/13 Permalink
Wish I lived in Australia too :(
|
10:01am 11/04/13 Permalink
^ Less complaining and more handing over your mining GST revenue!
|
10:11am 11/04/13 Permalink
Another reason why it's awesome (at least in Europe, maybe not here) is that getting a train means you can actually see parts of the country you're in. We did Zurich to Paris and it was a highlight of the trip even though we were on a train.Yeh that is awesome. The first time I was in Europe I was going from Amsterdam to Paris. I had 15 minutes pause in Cologne and I decided to just wander outside the train station instead of just sitting down doing nothing and was treated to the amazing view of the cathedral that is RIGHT THERE. Jaw droppingly awesome. That said, I love the view from planes. But being able to just step off like that is awesome. |
10:29am 11/04/13 Permalink
The first time I was in Europe I was going from Amsterdam to Paris. I had 15 minutes pause in Cologne and I decided to just wander outside the train station instead of just sitting down doing nothing and was treated to the amazing view of the cathedral that is RIGHT THERE. Jaw droppingly awesome. Imagine the unbridled excitement of being able to take a jaw dropping yet agonisingly brief first hand look at towns like Kempsey, Taree, Caboolture and Rockhampton! MONORAIL! MONORAIL! |
10:51am 11/04/13 Permalink
The beauty is unparalleled. (Also wtf, the 660 goes out of Caboolture station? Then why did I spend half a decade going all the way to landsborough to catch it? Past Translink has failed me)
|
11:12am 11/04/13 Permalink
The nanny state thinking would quickly add security theatre to trains as well, I bet. The difference is, even if you take a bomb on board, you can't hijack a train and run it into a building. Unless the building you want to run into is the terminating station? |
11:17am 11/04/13 Permalink
trog, you should apply for a job promoting trains!
I think we should just take the money planned for the NBN and put it towards high speed trains - they would be amazing!! |
11:17am 11/04/13 Permalink
Less complaining and more handing over your mining GST revenue! S'alright, we've already got a train and a road, you guys go buy yourselves something nice. |
11:26am 11/04/13 Permalink
Highspeed to WA would be reasonably easy - lots of flat land and straight places to lie it down.
|
12:16pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Isn't there a cheaper copper railing option we could use instead? We don't really need 350k/h right now. Got a lol out of me then I saw the add from "addled" at bottom of page and practically lost it. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/105047984/Train_Thread.GIF |
12:19pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Unless the building you want to run into is the terminating station? Oh well, at the end of the tracks you tend to be in places like Caboolture anyway. |
12:25pm 11/04/13 Permalink
If Labor show any support for this the Liberals will make a policy to put super expensive high speed trains on existing rail lines so they still only go the same speed they do now but it will be cheaper and happen faster than building a purpose built line!
If this ever happens, which is unlikely, Brisbane will be the last one to see any benefit. They will got from south to north. |
12:31pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Oh well, at the end of the tracks you tend to be in places like Caboolture anyway.The tracks don't terminate at Caboolture, they keep going up the coast. Also, that crash was at Cleveland. |
12:36pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Highspeed to WA would be reasonably easy - lots of flat land and straight places to lie it down. Not sure there's enough people over here to justify anything beyond air travel. I was just stirring before, we've already got a reasonably good rail line west of Adelaide. I'm sure the benefits of a high speed rail line on the east coast would flow west in due course. |
12:42pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Also, that crash was at Cleveland. Doh, s/Caboolture/Cleveland/ |
12:45pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Surely something like this could be done in closer to 10-15 years? that's actually a pretty f*****g good outcome really, if they could maintain that assuming weather holdups you're also forgetting the whole thing has to go through a investigation and design process first before work can even commence which would be included in those 45 years, though i imagine they would design it in chunks and let them get working on the first chunk as they design the next part. assuming of course the entire route of the track is built on good ground that doesn't need any material replaced or the track isn't required to be built on top huge f*** of banks of culverts because it cuts through a flood plain ie. flat ground that trains need to travel on - that is only 2 countless possible and probable design and construction issues they would be faced 10 - 15 years is yeah... no even close to being realistic someone involved in rail construction/design correct me if i am wrong though |
12:58pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Freight! Get all your juicy juicy ores to shipping ports / refineries, etc over here :) |
12:59pm 11/04/13 Permalink
You were accidentally half-right though, it changes to single tracks around Caboolture.
|
01:02pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Not sure there's enough people over here to justify anything beyond air travel. Melbourne to Syd = 5th busiest flight route. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_busiest_passenger_air_routes Let's get this done. I go down to Melbourne every couple of months for work, I'd much rather catch a train. - No security feelups. - No $70 cab to melb cbd in peak hour - No curfew for sydney airport. - Less delays due to dumb stuff like a small shower/winds + by the time it's 2053 or whatever we'll just be able to 3D print the trains! |
01:18pm 11/04/13 Permalink
I thought it was dual tracks up to Landsborough now.
|
01:18pm 11/04/13 Permalink
it will never happen for the same reason the NBN should never have happened. These kind of mega-expensive projects cannot generate sufficient returns to warrant their construction, and when someione says "but they will", the simple fact is that if they will, then private sector will build them.
$100b+ on a rail network is crazy when this could be spent on providing foreign aid.. |
01:19pm 11/04/13 Permalink
720m/week... ...that's actually a pretty f*****g good outcome really, The US laid 3000km of track in 6 years. In the 1800s. Nerf- I was talking about WA and the justification for a high speed east-west line. Not sure how often you fly to Perth, drop me a line next time you're in town :P |
01:21pm 11/04/13 Permalink
it will never happen for the same reason the NBN should never have happened. These kind of mega-expensive projects cannot generate sufficient returns to warrant their construction, and when someione says "but they will", the simple fact is that if they will, then private sector will build them. I'm the most money-anal person in the world, and even I know that money is ultimately only collected to spend on desirable life-improving things which cost money, not only to generate more money. "That coffee won't generate me any money, so it serves absolutely no purpose." |
01:26pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Infrastructure has to actualy serve a purpose (including an unmet demand) besides just sounding like a nice idea... Now we have a fully functioning airline industry in Australia, paid for by end users on a for-profit basis.
Why would the government build an unprofitable infrastructure to run on a subsidised basis competing directly against the airlines, and in turn sending them broke. That is economic suicide. |
01:35pm 11/04/13 Permalink
I think that what I said went over your head, and you instead think that I said "build everything which sounds like a nice idea, without any sort of value evaluation."
I was only responding to the idea that the -only- thing that money should ever be spent on are things which will generate more money, ruling out all things which might earn a decent amount while serving many other purposes (including a move away from carbon emission based-travel as Trog pointed out). And this is coming from somebody who would probably never use it, and would happily shut down olympics and sports funding, fireworks, ceremonies, and so on, for not serving enough economic purpose. Some things aren't exclusively about generating money, and are in fact the reason that we chase money in the first place. |
01:48pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Infrastructure has to actualy serve a purpose (including an unmet demand) besides just sounding like a nice idea... Now we have a fully functioning airline industry in Australia, paid for by end users on a for-profit basis.Why would the government build an unprofitable infrastructure to run on a subsidised basis competing directly against the airlines, and in turn sending them broke.That is economic suicide.I agree it would be if you think that the nation is not going to grow in size significantly in the next 20-100 years and the price of oil is not going to increase by an order of magnitude or more. Airlines happily coexist with rail in Europe and Japan. It's just lead to more competitiveness in the airline industry; there's a clear separation between budget carriers like EasyJet/Jet2 and the premium ones like BA, Lufthansa, etc. Again tho it's totally a long term thing and I think the vision is simply too great for it to happen any time soon. |
02:02pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Population density.Hence comment about long term thing. My whole premise is based on the fact that a) it is inevitable that a civilization will need high speed rail and b) it is always cheaper to do that yesterday than when you actually need it. If either of those are wrong (or you don't agree with them) then I completely agree that the whole thing would probably be a completely catastrophic pipedream. If scientists would stop d***ing around and give us the jetpacks we were promised it'd probably not be a big deal. |
02:15pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Yes of course tracks for steam trains during a time when flood studies didn't exist and all other things we have to take into account these day meant nothing is a valid comparison to building bulet train tracks in the modern day
The people that did this study didn't pull that number out of their ass |
02:21pm 11/04/13 Permalink
what else are all the construction workers currently working on road works going to do for the next 40 years once they are all finished up?
|
02:22pm 11/04/13 Permalink
40 years construction... that's means it needs to survive at least 13 successive federal elections. Never gonna happen. What we need is a large, spontaneous eruption into song about how the mono... I mean HSR system would benefit us all. |
02:30pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Yes of course tracks for steam trains during a time when flood studies didn't exist and all other things we have to take into account these day meant nothing is a valid comparison to building bulet train tracks in the modern day I agree, I just wanted to bring it up because it's such an amazing feat. |
02:39pm 11/04/13 Permalink
it will never happen for the same reason the NBN should never have happened. These kind of mega-expensive projects cannot generate sufficient returns to warrant their construction, and when someone says "but they will", the simple fact is that if they will, then private sector will build them. People keep saying this s*** and it's just not true, private industry has a completely different investment mindset to govt and comparing the two is completely fallacious. 1. Private industry investment timelines tend to be much shorter term 2. Private industry investment by law must be in the best interests of the shareholders. 3. Private borrowing costs are much higher than govt ones. 4. Private investment necessarily needs to account for potential regulatory issues like potential monopoly controls. Therefore the investment decision making for the two should necessarily be completely different: 1. Govt can and *should* develop public goods, i.e. projects which may pay off for society at large without necessarily benefiting any individual or group. Infrastructure falls nicely into this category. A private companies rate of return on infrastructure may only be 7% but the govt sees whatever profit it generates plus whatever increased tax income they make due to higher productivity. 2. Govt can borrow at much lower rates because they have a guaranteed fiscal (i.e. income/outlay) and monetary (i.e. independent currency) flexibility to manage their economies. 3. Govt can make whatever goddamn regulations it wants, within constitutional limits. Please stop saying stupid s*** infi. |
02:40pm 11/04/13 Permalink
"Beyond Zero Emissions have done their own study on the HSR route in partnership with the German Aerospace Centre (DLR). Their research, which will be published in full in May, indicates that the chosen HSR route could be built for under $70 billion, a lot less than the $114 billion quoted in the latest government study."
Source: http://bze.org.au/media/releases/high-speed-rail-cost-and-timeline-%E2%80%9Claughable%E2%80%9D-130411 |
02:50pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Let me explain my comment a little further with a back-of-the-envelope calculation.Population of each state as at Jun 2011 (ABS 3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2011):QLD: 4,470,000 NSW: 7,210,000 VIC: 5,530,000 Land area of each state (km^2, sourced from wiki):QLD: 1,730,648 NSW: 800,642 VIC: 227,416 This gives what I will call a 2011 east cost population density of 6.24If we take the highest projection of the Australian population provided by the ABS for 30 June 2056 and also generously assume that this entire population lives on the east coast then the east coast population will be 42,510,400 at this point in time.This gives us a 2056 east coast population density of 15.41 [42,510,400/2,758,706].By comparison the 2010 population densities of other nations with HSR are as follows (sourced from World Bank):Japan: 350France: 119UK: 257Germany: 235Italy: 206China: 143 One thing wrong with this is that Australia is very urbanised down the east coast where the track would presumably run, it's not a matter of servicing the empty inland swathes of the states (particularly QLD). http://www.about-australia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/australias-population-density.gif And another (Presumably it'd be running through the dark blue patches) http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/images/10/human_settlements/medium/hs05pop_growth_dist-map2.gif |
02:55pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Apparently it will take 3 hours to travel from Brisbane to Sydney. It currently takes approx 2 hours to catch a plane from Melbourne to Brisbane.
Why would a high speed train be beneficial if the travel times are slower? Also i find it funny that labor ministers are on tv today acting like they are seriously considering it. Even Labor said that government would have to fund it all. No government will shell out 100billion dollars for a high speed train line no matter whos in power. |
03:00pm 11/04/13 Permalink
A fair point, as I said it was a back of the envelope calculation and finding the areas of affected councils and summing their areas wasn't my idea of a fun afternoon.I think it illustrates my argument, though.I was thinking along Nerfy lines in that any track would basically just be fanging down the east coast through the dense population corridor that exists. I want it's awesome iron tendrils to extend out into the middle of nowhere as well though. Basically if I can't get a train to any random point in the outback whenever I want I think it's clear that this civilization has failed. |
03:06pm 11/04/13 Permalink
03:21pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Its high speed, you wont even notice.
|
03:25pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Surely it should only take 10 years to build to perth
|
03:25pm 11/04/13 Permalink
I have some thoughts on thathttp://img542.imageshack.us/img542/6574/hs05popgrowthdistmap2.gif Hire this man right now. |
03:26pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Now, sit back and wait for abbotts reply, High speed rail to the current network
It is roughly the same as the labor plan, but they'll only build the high speed rail upto the cities current rail network. where current rail system would then handle the passangers, now while the southern parts of sydneys network might take 3 hours into the city, research has found that they can increase the speeds of the current inner city trains to decrease the current travel time any arguments about the age of the network are mute as due it the already aged nature, it has proven it might last with no upgrades |
03:31pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Infrastructure has to actualy serve a purpose (including an unmet demand) besides just sounding like a nice idea... Now we have a fully functioning airline industry in Australia, paid for by end users on a for-profit basis.The report shows that it will likely have little impact on the pressures on air travel as they are more or less at capacity now and by the time this thing gets finished the amount of travel between the major cities would have increased significantly. In other words they would need to build the HSR and accommodate more air traffic to keep up with demand (which means more airports/runways) and still be pushed to meet the market. Essentially this won't really affect air travel except to help keep costs from ballooning from under supply, it seems like it will more have an impact on traffic conditions and pressures. Can't remember the exact figures the guy in the press conference mentioned but he said the report claims that the project will make enough to pay for itself eventually while remaining cost competitive with other transport modes. Private companies are even less interested in long term investment and returns than 3 year term politicians. |
04:22pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Oh Australia, you so backwards!
Investing in non-car/fossil transport infrastructure now before great population and urban growth would be the smart choice and have massive long-term benefits. Cars or planes aren't the answer for major urban travel. That Melb to Syd flight route says it all, a rail link there would be far better. Plus Infi's economic reasoning is retarded - is that really the kind of bs the parties are coming out with? |
06:28pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Oh Australia, you so backwards! Investing in non-car/fossil transport infrastructure now before great population and urban growth would be the smart choice and have massive long-term benefits. Cars or planes aren't the answer for major urban travel. That Melb to Syd flight route says it all, a rail link there would be far better.Plus Infi's economic reasoning is retarded - is that really the kind of bs the parties are coming out with? er this times a very large number |
06:36pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Investing in non-car/fossil transport infrastructure now before great population and urban growth would be the smart choice and have massive long-term benefits. Cars or planes aren't the answer for major urban travel. That Melb to Syd flight route says it all, a rail link there would be far better. How is it "non-car/fossil transport" infrastructure? I assume your talking about fossil fuels or do you mean something else? cause if you're talking fossil fuels it's not going to run on fresh air. or piggy back the NBN. There are a few issues I see with this whole concept. First the logistical ones. Time frame - by the time it's usable surely technology for aircraft engines and fuel consumption would have improved significantly thus reducing flight costs and greenhouse gases to counter that argument. Schedule timing. If we use Brisbane to Sydney as an example i can choose from over 30 flights on a week day at a time convenient to me to get there. How many trains a day would do this run? What if there's a break down, derailment, incident, the whole thing comes to a standstill in the middle of bum f*** no where, then what? What's my alternative? Next political - I find it hard to imagine successive State and Federal govts agreeing enough over that period of time to get this done. The European comparison - they've been using rail for a lot longer than us. their culture is used to it. They have a much higher population density for such a service. I love their trains, travelled on them in Italy (man that station in Milan is awesome). But I don't think comparing the European experience to here holds any weight in this. Hence comment about long term thing. My whole premise is based on the fact that a) it is inevitable that a civilization will need high speed rail and b) it is always cheaper to do that yesterday than when you actually need it. I don't agree with a)why is it inevitable? b)is a no brainer applies to anything, some people call it hindsight. But why do you think a HSR is inevitable? be interested to know. So while I might like the fantasy and concept of this, and I agree it would be a fun trip and I would probably try it once or twice, I really don't see it as being viable or necessary. |
07:50pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Time frame - by the time it's usable surely technology for aircraft engines and fuel consumption would have improved significantly thus reducing flight costs and greenhouse gases to counter that argument.All the easy improvements for air travel have been made. The latest "big advancement" in air travel are things like the A380 and 787 which are mere percentage bumps on the existing arrangements. There is a lot of great research still being done in aerospace (some of it right here in Brisbane!!) but not doing anything because you hope someone will invent something else tomorrow is not a great idea (one thing I agree on with the NBN, really - fibre is "good enough" to risk deploying). Schedule timing. If we use Brisbane to Sydney as an example i can choose from over 30 flights on a week day at a time convenient to me to get there. How many trains a day would do this run?From a quick look there are 32 trains a day from Paris to Frankfurt which is 572.6 km What if there's a break down, derailment, incident, the whole thing comes to a standstill in the middle of bum f*** no where, then what? What's my alternative?This sort of thing happens with existing train systems and they just get dealt with. We're not really talking (yet) about people getting stuck in the outback 2000km from civilization. But people have been running trains in the middle of nowhere for a hundred years so those problems are sort of already dealt with. (I would just go sit in the restaurant carriage and drink some beer.) I don't agree with a)why is it inevitable? b)is a no brainer applies to anything, some people call it hindsight. But why do you think a HSR is inevitable? be interested to know.In a modern high density city with lots of people it's just not sustainable for everyone to have their own cars and drive them to get to work. Real estate becomes too valuable to waste on car parks and roads, etc. As far as I can tell this is true in any modern big city. (Funny timing: it took me an hour and a half to get from Indooroopilly to Fort. Valley last night. I debated about getting a train and decided not to because I wanted to go somewhere else afterwards - there apparently was an accident on the Pacific Motorway that had traffic backed up for hours. I spent about an hour in traffic to get maybe 1km down Coro before doing an illegal u-turn to go back via Milton. ) |
08:44am 12/04/13 Permalink
What if there's a break down, derailment, incident, the whole thing comes to a standstill in the middle of bum f*** no where, then what? What's my alternative? What about when you miss airport curfew in Sydney and you get dropped off in bum f*** Canberra? :P The state government is completely against building a 2nd airport in Sydney and Sydney airport is getting pretty goddam crowded. Hi speed rail to Melbourne. Do it. |
09:30am 12/04/13 Permalink
What if there's a break down, derailment, incident, the whole thing comes to a standstill in the middle of bum f*** no where, then what? What's my alternative? A Coach? I say better this happens at an altitude of 0ft than 40,000ft. |
09:38am 12/04/13 Permalink
If it's implemented by Labor and liberals win election it will be reverted back to a horse and carriage system.
|
09:45am 12/04/13 Permalink
but not doing anything because you hope someone will invent something else tomorrow is not a great idea what I mean is that the build time frame will surely allow for many more advances in other forms of transport. If we had to do this we should have laid the lines or parts there of many years ago. I'm not hoping for someone to invent something, I'd say given our advancements its inevitable that advancements will happen. From a quick look there are 32 trains a day from Paris to Frankfurt which is 572.6 km yes but many more multi track lines and infrastructure in place through high density populated areas also infinitely more viable with their population - France population - >65M, Germany >81M, lots more customers there to make this viable (and access to alternative forms of travel for break downs)
they're not really "dealt with" even when the tilt train derailed up Nth QLD a few years back it took emergency services some time to get there. With a plane i can, grab an alternative flight, move to another airline, wait in an airport bar. I also have many more options to get where I am going. and for redhat - you can grab a hire car to complete you journey from Canberra to Sydney. what will you do when stranded in Guyra? my main point here was that at least airlines are in major centres. the rail will undoubtedly go through vast areas of unpopulated country side. And I'm not entirely talking about a major incident every time. A simple mechanical or line fault, think buckling lines in the heat, could leave you stranded. Plus with our marvellous mobile network you wont even be able to call anyone without a sat phone. A flight delay or cancellation still leaves much better alternative options. I'm curious as to how many journeys a day they can schedule from say Brisbane/Sydney & Brisbane/Melbourne? |
12:02pm 12/04/13 Permalink
If it's a derailment then I presume the same mechanical failure would happen with a plane - so you'd be able to enjoy the view as you plummet to earth. If it's a scheduling issue or issue with the line then presumably you can enjoy the restaurant cars until it's fixed.
Plenty of airports are in bum f*** towns and pilots would have divert to the nearest one if there was any problems. Air routes go over vast areas of unpopulated country side too. You can presume that the rail would follow as close to the existing road infrastructure. Melbourne - Albury - Canberra - Sydney. Sydney - Newcastle - Coffs - Goldie - Brisbane. Besides if the train line ran through Guyra who is to say that couldn't grow in population.. 1 1/2 - 2hr trips into Sydney/Brisbane could make it an option for people to live in. |
12:23pm 12/04/13 Permalink
what I mean is that the build time frame will surely allow for many more advances in other forms of transport. If we had to do this we should have laid the lines or parts there of many years ago. I'm not hoping for someone to invent something, I'd say given our advancements its inevitable that advancements will happen.What a load of bulls***. What advancements do you predict will happen in the next 50 years that deals with our over utilised airports? They are more or less running at capacity now, just about every airport on the east coast is considering major upgrades or in Sydney's case a complete new airport and that's just to help handle the traffic they have now let alone what it will be like in 50 years. Even if planes somehow get new more efficient engines it wont solve the problem of not having enough runways to land at. Also the road traffic surrounding the airports will only get worse where as a train can disperse traffic over multiple stations. It's far more likely that there will be advancements in land travel than air (such as super conductors being used) and in order to take advantage we will need the rail corridor. Even if air travel does significantly improve it doesn't deter the need for more transport options. The scheduling issues are also irrelevant, a train derailment is as likely as a plane falling out of the sky and I know which I would prefer to be on. The rail lines for HSR are not like the s***** rails we have domestically, they run at 350km/h, can you imagine how often there would be train derailments around the world if a little heat were enough to buckle a train rail for a high speed train? Trains are also far more likely to arrive and leave on time compared to a plane, they are not going to be delayed by storms or over utilised runways, the ticket prices are not going to fluctuate wildly, they are without doubt a much more stable form of transport. |
12:58pm 12/04/13 Permalink
they're not really "dealt with" even when the tilt train derailed up Nth QLD a few years back it took emergency services some time to get there. With a plane i can, grab an alternative flight, move to another airline, wait in an airport bar. I also have many more options to get where I am going.Any catastrophic disaster scenario is hard to factor in because there are so many variables. A bad train crash might mean the track is closed for a long time, disrupting traffic. A bad plane crash will do the same (although I would say a plane crash has the potential to be worse; if a plane goes down it's not uncommon for all planes of that type to be grounded for safety reasons - A380 and 787 both had this happen in very recent times. A flight delay or cancellation still leaves much better alternative options.not if your airport is snowed or fogged in. There's a million things that cause problems in airline travel, just like there is in rail travel and car travel. At the end of the day those arguments don't stop other countries running extremely successful mass transit systems of which HSR plays a big role. The only objection I think one can make to rail is that it costs a s***load to do. If you're a small government person then you'll never think it's a good idea because it costs too much (of course you'll forget about this while the government builds roads everywhere). Cost is a perfectly valid objection; it is expensive. But that's why governments need to do it (... if you subscribe to the theory that a government should be providing core infrastructure, anyway). |
01:15pm 12/04/13 Permalink
I have some thoughts on thathttp://img542.imageshack.us/img542/6574/hs05popgrowthdistmap2.gif Travelling to Sydney over the "Great Aussie Bite Bridge" would be awesome! Build this! |
02:23pm 12/04/13 Permalink
Love the idea, just wish they could manage to build it faster. I know there are lots of factors involved but I bet the biggest is the spend each year, the man power available and what it would do to the economy to pump huge amount of dollars into a project like this quickly.
Will be great for business as well cos their area of access to high quality talent will expand greatly. Hopefully way before 2053 we will be doing long commutes using self driving cars. |
02:32pm 12/04/13 Permalink
