I am curious as to why The Nsw govt (or a co-op venture with vic and qld), does not invest in a high speed rail network loosely based on the French Tgv's. Althought the cost would be significant, would it not spur growth and contribute to interstate co-operation, and ofcourse a much decreased travel time alleviating stresses on our current system. Thoughts???

P.

http://bestscreen.free.fr/Transports/Trains800/TGV%20Duplex.jpg

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/frenchtgv/images/french4.jpg

The main reason is that NSW gov't will have to pay the majority because the majority of the line is in NSW soil.

What about intrastate. between Newcastle and the illwa.

They had a proposal going to link Sydney and Newcastle. it was scrapped because of the cost. However, there is a proposal going to link Sydney CBD with Paramatta which takes 10 min to travel.

While this feature new rolling stock?

The problem is that our government still holds roads at a greater level of importance than rail. This is very shortsighted but is, in fact, reality.

While this feature new rolling stock?

Probably TGV or tilt-train. Completely new underground track.

Excellent thanks for the news, be sure to keep us posted.

lol matix.

the current route proposed is funded by QLD, Vic and Fed Govt.
NSW is paying minimal, and yet still objects.

Your premier is a fool. Unless it goes through Sydney, it doesnt exist.

Principes, there is a thread for the Parramatta thing.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=191308
It almost certainly won't go ahead, it was only ever a proposal.

lol matix.

the current route proposed is funded by QLD, Vic and Fed Govt.
NSW is paying minimal, and yet still objects.

Your premier is a fool. Unless it goes through Sydney, it doesnt exist.

Agreed, the premier is a fool but it's not quite as simple as that. As Matix said, much of the line would go through NSW so their contribution would not be minimal. It's a good proposal but there should be a fast line through Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. The inland proposal, even if it had a high speed branch to Sydney, doesn't satisfy this. In an ideal world, we'd have both a high speed inland and high speed coastal but this just isn't going to happen soon.

TGV is overkill for Sydney-Brisbane.

The federal government's own study said that the amount of people who would be travelling end to end on the Sydney-Brisbane corridor would be no where near as many on Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney. They said themselves the majority of patronage in the Sydney-Brisbane corridor will lie between Brisbane and Murwillumbah and Sydney and Newcastle - tiling 200kph trains would better suit this corridor as it's cheaper and the terrain north of sydney will send the price of an LGV skywards, rolling stock is more efficient for what the service would be for and you'd still get a semi-decent end to end time (5 hours), which would capture some of the market from planes.

The same goes for Melbourne-Adelaide (end to end in bout 4 hours @ 200kph) and would capture more patronage from the provincial cities along the line, except there'd possibly be more on the end to end market as they're the closest of the state capitals.

You could use the Sydney-Brisbane argument for Melbourne to Sydney as well, however if ever there were a corridor that would be more suited to TGV-like services (300-350kph, stopping every 100km or so) it would be this one as there are more people, there is more business traffic, and there's more public sector traffic, and Albury-Wodonga is perfectly positioned between Melbourne and Canberra and has enormous potential for growth (Melbourne-Albury-Canberra-Sydney are all similar distances apart, at least from a stopping pattern perspective, that could be done under 3 hours with TGV-like services running at 350kph).

I think you'd split the project in three, then each section into smaller chunks.

Capital, Queenslander & Overland corridors:

Capital:
- Phase 1, build Sydney-Canberra, LGV Capital 1
- Phase 2, build Melbourne-Albury, LGV Capital 2
- Phase 3, build Albury-Canberra, LGV Capital 3

- Buy 6 or so sets for the start of running when LGV Capital 1 opens, run an hourly service to Canberra, and every third hour, the trains runs to Melbourne via the existing allignment (sets would need to have hybrid EMU/DMU capabilities).
- Buy another 6 or so when LGV Capital 2 opens, start by running a train every 2 hours between MElbourne and Sydney, using the two new LGVs and the old allignment between Albury and Canberra
- Buy whatever else is needed once LGV Capital 3 opens, then start running hourly services.
estimating times: current journey: 12 hours?. Mel-Syd would be about 8 hours with LGV Cap 1 complete, 5-6 hours with LGV Caps 1 and 2 complete and three or under with full line complete.

Queenslander:
- Phase 1, build Sydney-Newcastle (new allignments, rebuild old ones where possible)
- Phase 2, build Brisbane-Coffs Harbour (as above)
- Phase 3, build Newcastle-Coffs Harbour (as above)
- Quadruple sections (freight loops) at regular intervals (50-60km)

Similar services to Capital, except Hourly in the first two phases from the outset, the tilts will speed up the existing allignments pre-rebuilds, so there'll be gradual benefits as each part gets done.
estimating times: current journey I think is 12 hours? Syd-Bne 8-9 hours with 1st phase complete, 7-8 hours after 1st and 2nd and bout 5 with all phases complete.

Overland:
- Phase 1, lay SG track between Melbourne and Ballarat, convert Ballarat - Ararat
- Phase 2, duplicate & upgrade Ararat- Tailem Bend
- Phase 3, build completely new access to Adelaide.
- Quadruple sections, freight loops every 50-60km,
estimating times: Current journey 10 hours. 8 hours after 1st phase completed, 5-6 hours with 1st and 2nd complete, bout 4 after all phases complete.

- Services start with 2 hourly service, tilts will speed up existing Adelaide hills, moving to 60-90 minute services once full line complete.

build all three project's Phases in synch, i.e Capital, Queenslander and Overland Phase 1, then as Phase 1 completes (5 years), start on Phase 2 (10 years), then 3 (13-15 years) etc.

Passenger and Freight services mix on Queenslander and Overland lines, Freight and [local] passenger services on existing Mel-Syd line, [premium express and local] passenger services exclusively on LGV.

Overland and Queenslander governed by an AWS-like system (British) & run using the same rolling stock, Capital governed by TVM430 / other TGV derivative. Possibly buy a few more Overland & Queenslander sets to weave on and off the LGV Capital to run the more local services (Melbourne-Kilmore-Seymour-Wangaratta-Albury-Gundagai-Wagga Wagga-Canberra-Goulburn-Mittagong-Sydney) etc.

LGV = Ligne à Grand Vitesse, High Speed Line

That's what I would have liked to say but couldn't. Great work.

Premier Carr was initially throwing his support behind Maglev but that died a very quiet death.

We won't see this anytime soon because of cheap airfares. The project costs too much to compete.

lol matix.

the current route proposed is funded by QLD, Vic and Fed Govt.
NSW is paying minimal, and yet still objects.

Your premier is a fool. Unless it goes through Sydney, it doesnt exist.

Federal gov't? Arn't they the same party who refused to fund the Speedrail project? Another reason why it will not happen.

I agree pretty much with Tayser.
300+ kmh operation is really only necessary on the Syd-Can-Alb-Mel Corridor. And for a train to achieve such a high average speed you need a decent alignment and very few stops. So then you need to run frequent local services on the same track or on the old alignment, to feed into the express network.
As for Mel-Ade or Syd-Bris I'm thinking average 200kmh operation with some major realignment (not to the extent of Syd-Mel tho) run by Diesel or Electric Tilts.

Great post tayser, but I'd personally push it a little further.

Australia needs a national system - not 7 seperate interstate systems which fight for funding and customers.

We really need to push through with electrification - we're a huge country, and if the rail network's electrified.

Any new high speed link to Melbourne via Canberra should be built via Wollongong This would be expensive, but that cost could be subsidised by allowing for the running of local trains from Wollongong to Sydney at more regular intervals.

Once a true highspeed (300kph + ) corridor is established, Canberra Airport could potentially be closed or converted to a private airfield (latter's probably the best option). It's hardly needed anyway, being only 3 or 4 hours from Sydney.

Matixvolta: those cheap airfares won't last long if oil prices keep rising...

The major cities are too far apart with too few large population centres in between, simple! No private company would go near the project (see Victorian regionalk fast rail) so the government would have to borrow a massive amount of money to build it, which is never going to happen.

I think another 5 to 10 years before any serious option is raised, especially if the crude oil price continues to go up and up.

in between brisbane and sydney you have 2 of the largest regional cities in Australia in newcastle and the GC. theres also the central coast and coffs that have a large regional population.

isnt the Pacific Hwy the busiest in the country? I can still see very good reasons to build very high speed lines between sydney and brisbane but i dont think we will ever see it.

I think when you add the cumulative populations between SYD & BRIS and MELB & SYD you have marginally the same

Principes, there is a thread for the Parramatta thing.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=191308
It almost certainly won't go ahead, it was only ever a proposal.

Thx sirhc, well that’s really a shame, a much needed boost for rail travel is needed desperately, atm it is clearly in the doldrums.

in between brisbane and sydney you have 2 of the largest regional cities in Australia in newcastle and the GC. theres also the central coast and coffs that have a large regional population.

isnt the Pacific Hwy the busiest in the country? I can still see very good reasons to build very high speed lines between sydney and brisbane but i dont think we will ever see it.

I think when you add the cumulative populations between SYD & BRIS and MELB & SYD you have marginally the same

The northern coastal region of NSW is the fastest growing region in Australia outside Queensland which should be reason enough to build a fast rail between Brisbane & Sydney. Look at towns like Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie, Taree and Ballina - all growing very fast and should have decent rail. Ballina doesn't even have rail and they are going highrise!!!

in between brisbane and sydney you have 2 of the largest regional cities in Australia in newcastle and the GC.

they're not between Brisbane and Sydney like Albury and Caberra are between Melbourne & Sydney - Gold Coast and Newcastle/Central Coast are satellites of their respective capital city, there's a very long distance between Newcastle and the Gold Coast, everything in between is insignificant on a national scale.

theres also the central coast and coffs that have a large regional population.

which is in between Newcastle and Sydney - the Central Coast is commutersville, it's hardly on the map for interstate travel.


I can still see very good reasons to build very high speed lines between sydney and brisbane but i dont think we will ever see it.

but I don't think you quite grasp the concept that any HSR service wouldn't be focused directly at the capital to capital market, it would be focused at regional centres and interurban markets closer to the two end points. There's a very big difference what I explained earlier.

I think when you add the cumulative populations between SYD & BRIS and MELB & SYD you have marginally the same

...yet they're different markets as I keep saying.

We won't see this anytime soon because of cheap airfares. The project costs too much to compete.

Rising fuel prices won't do much for that - I'm up for a f**king 500-600 dollar fuel surcharge on a RTW plane ticket (if I go with it).

And looking at 'cheap' airfares as they stand, one hand you get half-arsed service (Virgin Blue and Jetstar) and full service (Qantas) for not that much in price difference. Even if you disregard any 'cheap' factor in airline tickets, rail pricing regimes are always going to provide good competition (especially on Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney) to keep both airfares and train prices low.

The aim should be: first class rail travel for the price of an economy full-service ticket on Qantas.

I just wouldn't fly between Sydney and Melbourne if that were the case:
- better service than flying
- takes only slightly longer
- CBD to CBD
- no need to be at the terminal 30-60 minutes prior to departure
- you can see more.

$0.02

Taser,

You say you reckon its good for regional towns like albury and canberra for freight hubs etc. Ok so theres different markets. the east coast would be a tourism based line then. for instance, you have byron, port maquarie, coffs harbour and ballina. all tourism based areas. Plus the gold coast on there. Thats my reasons which are different to yours.

Im not against the Syd to Melb but i still think that a line between Syd and Bris is just as worthy

:|

might be worth your while actually reading what I said before trying to summarise what I said (or what little you read of it).

Yes, but his point is not that the rail corridor can support such rail, it is that Brisbane is just as important as Sydney and Melbourne. 'If you get one why shouldn't I?'
When one has formed an unwavering opinion, no amount of logic can trump it.

I think another 5 to 10 years before any serious option is raised, especially if the crude oil price continues to go up and up.

I'd say about that, maybe sooner. But it needs to be NATIONAL this time, not another set of 5 or so seperate plans. The decisions of the various colonies back when rail started up to go with different gauges (fools!) is what has prevented that from happening thus far.

Oh, and oil prices will continue to rise - we're pretty much at the peak rate of supply now.

Im not against the Syd to Melb but i still think that a line between Syd and Bris is just as worthy

60% more people fly between Melbourne and Sydney compared to Brisbane and Sydney, that is why it is more attractive for fast rail.

Passenger movements on Domestic Air Routes (Year ending December 2004)

Melbourne-Sydney: 6.2 million (10% growth 03-04)
Brisbane-Sydney: 3.9 million (5.1% growth 03-04)

60% more people fly between Melbourne and Sydney compared to Brisbane and Sydney, that is why it is more attractive for fast rail.

Passenger movements on Domestic Air Routes (Year ending December 2004)

Melbourne-Sydney: 6.2 million (10% growth 03-04)
Brisbane-Sydney: 3.9 million (5.1% growth 03-04)

Don't forget - alot more people drive north in the holidays - a definite market for rail (I can guarantee, most drivers hate driving all the way to the Gold Coast for 10 straight hours).

You also have major holiday destinations along the way too. Think how many more people rail has the potential to carry than that shocking road known as the Pacific Highway and it's easy to see the economic benefits. Not to mention that freight can also go along a rail line with relative ease...

This is a market rail could get IF a line is built via the Gold Coast (the way it should have been built in the first place...)

60% more people fly between Melbourne and Sydney compared to Brisbane and Sydney, that is why it is more attractive for fast rail.

Passenger movements on Domestic Air Routes (Year ending December 2004)

Melbourne-Sydney: 6.2 million (10% growth 03-04)
Brisbane-Sydney: 3.9 million (5.1% growth 03-04)

Melbourne - Canberra & Sydney - Canberra?

the PERFECT train for BNE-SYD and MEL-ADL

Class 221 'Super Voyager' Tiling trains. Capable of 200kph, very fast accel and deccel (see clips) and could easily be the workhorse between Sydney and Brisbane and Melbourne & Adelaide. The only modification I would make is make them hybrid EMU/DMU so as they can use the wires when they're under them and thus spew fewer diesel fumes into the built up areas.

The class config is about right for us too.

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/gb/diesel/demu/221/221114_Sprey_Point_19feb04.jpg

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/gb/diesel/demu/221/UK221124.jpg

North of Birmingham, tearing it up @ 200kph (3meg mpg):

http://thehoddlegrid.net/dump/bscap009.jpg (http://thehoddlegrid.net/dump/voyager200kph.mpg)

Pulling out of Bristol Temple Meads (note there's an engine in each carriage & the speed of which it pulls out of the station - 10meg mpg)

http://thehoddlegrid.net/dump/bscap010.jpg (http://thehoddlegrid.net/dump/voyagertakeoff.mpg)

Just for a comparison,

Bristol Temple Meads to Birmingham NEw Street is bout 140km (bit more than Sydney to Newcastle), trains every hour, only a few select stops in between, takes 1hour 20 minutes travelling at an average of 120kph, if an upgraded allignment were to be built allowing an average of 160kph (i.e tiling and legs of 200kph) then you'd be able to cover it in an hour. Price: 7 day advance purchase, one way is £8.95 ($20AUD).

Glasgow Central to London King's Cross on GNER, one way, 700km (similar to Mel-Adl), 200kph East Coast Mainline (ECML) ~5 hours, 14 day advance purchase: £17 ($40AUD)!

WTF are we waiting for?!?!

How classy are Virgin's TV ads?

6 meg each

http://richmedia.virgintrains.co.uk/fallinginlove.mpg
http://richmedia.virgintrains.co.uk/allaboard.mpg

the PERFECT train for BNE-SYD and MEL-ADL


Yeah, they'd work well, but so would a modernised version of the Xplorer.

That said, A CountryLink livery would look great on those machine (I think CountryLink should be used as the name of a national system (Qld can operate their own services north of Brissy, they do well anyway). It works, people in NSW are familiar with it etc.

Just saw a short story on Channel 10 news about Steve Bracks inspired by a trip on a Japanese bullet train- he wants to see high speed rail between Melbourne and Sydney. Would like to think that all of a sudden more pollies push for it but unlikely. Enjoying the discussion on this topic

Just saw a short story on Channel 10 news about Steve Bracks inspired by a trip on a Japanese bullet train- he wants to see high speed rail between Melbourne and Sydney. Would like to think that all of a sudden more pollies push for it but unlikely. Enjoying the discussion on this topic

Yeah, I saw that too. One can only hope... What we need right now is a serious proposal. It'll happen soon if the oil prices stay this high for a few months.

Best thing about the Super Voyagers are that they're a Bombardiér model - the company already exists in Australia, the know-how is in the company, all that is needed is the resources and they could possibly be built on shore.

More info on Virgin Super Voyager:

Width: 2.7m [all British trains have a slimmer profile / loading guage, no?]
Length: 116.7m (5 cars)
Seated Pax: ~210 (5 car)
Max Speed 200kph.

______________

re: countrylink, oh god no. The last thing we want is modern interstate services run by statutory corporations with craphouse profiles.

I'd prefer to see the infrastructure built and maintained by ARTC, and have private operators lease the track/stations and run the segments - just like the mainline operations in the UK - Virgin, GNER, Wessex, MML etc.

Infrastructure: I think it's only fair that Victoria and New South Wales finance the majority of the projects, (as the vast majority of the track will lie in either Victoria or New South Wales to the borders of NSW/QLD and VIC/SA), where the QLD and SA governments pay thereafter - on top of that, the Federal Government matches the states commitment dollar for dollar... i.e Between Sydney and Gold Coast, NSW and Federal government go 50/50, Gold Coast to Brisbane QLD and Federal government go 50/50.... Melbourne - Bordertown VIC and Federal government 50/50 and Bordertown - Adelaide SA and Feds go 50/50 (you get the idea). All the state and federal governments just funnel that money at the ARTC and the ARTC contracts the work out to the best bidder.

Then you have the private operators investing in the rolling stock, crews and all the infrastructure (primarily information based - ticketing systems etc) to get the services running. That would be a 70-75% / 25-30% Public private partnership respectively, unless I'm way off in judging what the true costs are.

Same deal for the Melbourne-Sydney route, except you have the ACT also contributing and possibly higher federal contributions as well, Canberra benefits the most from such a setup. Nice way for VIC and NSW to get our money back from you leeching interstate bitches too :D :D :D :lol:

Best thing about the Super Voyagers are that they're a Bombardiér model - the company already exists in Australia, the know-how is in the company, all that is needed is the resources and they could possibly be built on shore.

More info on Virgin Super Voyager:

Width: 2.7m [all British trains have a slimmer profile / loading guage, no?]
Length: 116.7m (5 cars)
Seated Pax: ~210 (5 car)
Max Speed 200kph.

______________

re: countrylink, oh god no. The last thing we want is modern interstate services run by statutory corporations with craphouse profiles.


No, I wasn't saying that the NSW government should own it. Not only no, but HELL NO. The Feds maybe, to get the ball rolling (let's face it, no corporation is going to leap into this without adequate track), but not state. Trans-national rail is too big a task for the states (which has been proven umpteen times since Federation.... All I was saying that perhaps they should use the name.

Though Trans National has a nice ring to it...

Don't forget - alot more people drive north in the holidays - a definite market for rail (I can guarantee, most drivers hate driving all the way to the Gold Coast for 10 straight hours).

You also have major holiday destinations along the way too. Think how many more people rail has the potential to carry than that shocking road known as the Pacific Highway and it's easy to see the economic benefits. Not to mention that freight can also go along a rail line with relative ease...

This is a market rail could get IF a line is built via the Gold Coast (the way it should have been built in the first place...)

I totally agree!

I think the northern route is important, actually more important than the southern melb sydney route... esp with all the NSW mid north coast. Most people would continue to fly to Melbourne anyway... alot of the people in NSW, north of newy are not as financial and plane tickets often cost a bomb from regional destinations.

Speaking of Countrylink ... Have you all seen my countrylink maglev? I know most of you have seen it but i like posting it.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/allicit/Images/Maglev.03.jpg

I think the northern route is important, actually more important than the southern melb sydney route... esp with all the NSW mid north coast. Most people would continue to fly to Melbourne anyway... alot of the people in NSW, north of newy are not as financial and plane tickets often cost a bomb from regional destinations.

But try and make the distinction between the two vastly different types of traffic - your beloved maglev would make no commercial sense north of Sydney, nor would a TGV, as said 'not as financial' people north of newy wouldn't be able to afford a premium train service on a TGV or Maglev platform ticket either.

You have to wonder what Carr is thinking in not following our lead and upgrading mid-distance intercity lines to allow for speedier services - the services that would most benefit the Central and South coasts.

More important my arse - it's important to New South Wales, not the rest of the country - Melbourne - Canberra - Sydney is by far and away the most 'important' of any national corridor, whether it be passenger or freight traffic on road, rail or in the air - it's the economic, cultural, political and social heart of the country.

I agree tays... the maglev aint a cheap option and would make sence from newy south to canberra and on to Melbourne.


But a pov fast train with cheap fares would be of more benfit to the NSW--> QLD line IMO

.............?

then what were you talking about before??

drugs are bad mmmkay ;)

Speaking of Countrylink ... Have you all seen my countrylink maglev? I know most of you have seen it but i like posting it.


Umm, what's with the purple? the lower part of CL's logo is DARK BLUE. Nice work though.

60% more people fly between Melbourne and Sydney compared to Brisbane and Sydney, that is why it is more attractive for fast rail.

Passenger movements on Domestic Air Routes (Year ending December 2004)

Melbourne-Sydney: 6.2 million (10% growth 03-04)
Brisbane-Sydney: 3.9 million (5.1% growth 03-04)

What about when you take into account that much of domestic air travel is made of of business market. Syd-Melb route has a strong business market while syd-bne/ melb-bne have a strong tourism/migration market. I doubt that a train line, no matter how fast it may be, is going to be that more attractive for business travel than the air route. Air travel will always be the more attractive (by far) because it is much quicker and less hassle. Trains on the other hand are more suited to tourism, which is why high speed networks do well in countries such as france, Germany, Italy, Japan etc.

I'm not saying that a route between Syd-bris would work either, in fact I don't think it is time that Australia could support any high speed rail system, except maybe within the major cities, but not interstate though. No matter how much you talk up the SYD-melb air route. Quite simply we just don't have the population and tourism numbers.

.............?

then what were you talking about before??

drugs are bad mmmkay ;)


Lol sorry to confuse. I know what you are saying about a premium service with premium rates... most people north of newy would not pay premium ticket prices and probably continue to drive. A moderately priced high speed service would be of great benefit though and be more lucrative possibly than a super high speed service to melbourne and canberra. I dont deny that a maglev or premium service like shinkensen nozomi or TGV would be better aimed from south from Newy and beyond.

I am in agreement with everyone... godspeed is next weekend BTW.

What about when you take into account that much of domestic air travel is made of of business market. Syd-Melb route has a strong business market while syd-bne/ melb-bne have a strong tourism/migration market. I doubt that a train line, no matter how fast it may be, is going to be that more attractive for business travel than the air route. Air travel will always be the more attractive (by far) because it is much quicker and less hassle. Trains on the other hand are more suited to tourism, which is why high speed networks do well in countries such as france, Germany, Italy, Japan etc.

:ohno:

on Business travel: if Melbourne-Sydney could be done in 3 hours, this would easily compare and compete with business air travel - Collins Street to George Street, not Mascot to Tullamarine. Travel to the airport is invariably done by private transport (especially in Melbourne) thus there's the added annoyance of leaving a car somewhere or organising someone to drop you off or paying for premium public transport services, whereas Spencer street and Central are hubs in public transport networks already in place & are cheaper to get to, no matter how far or close to an airport you live.

on Leisure travel: Virgin Blue's key market is just that! Where do you get this insane idea of having business and leisure traffic segmented on rail? Rail travel would be good for either. Compare the one-size-fits-all low cost Virgin Blue jets to a train which has both First and Economy classes, more choice in the same vehicle, not separate vehicles for separate markets. As has been said multiple times - Melbourne to Sydney will have a much higher concentration of business and public sector traffic as well as leisure traffic from point to point whereas Syd-Bne would be more orientated to interurban / commuting traffic with some end to end traffic.

Air Travel has FAR more hassles than rail and is only quick from the tarmac of one airport to the other - most people will arrive at the airport an hour before they're scheduled to depart, you would only have to be at the station 15 min before a train departure. You invariably wouldn't have to 'check in' or check luggage in on a train.

It's much faster to board a train than a plane, domestic or interational
It's much faster to disembark from a train than a plane
Trains can cater for businesses much better than planes - land transport can support infrastructure for people to keep carrying out their business whilst in transit (comms networks etc.) - planes can hardly compete in this area.
As above: Collins Street, Civic & George Street.
And there's much greater capacity potential in rail than air.

I'm not saying that a route between Syd-bris would work either, in fact I don't think it is time that Australia could support any high speed rail system, except maybe within the major cities, but not interstate though. No matter how much you talk up the SYD-melb air route. Quite simply we just don't have the population and tourism numbers.

despite what's been said already, you still draw that conclusion that has been proven wrong by our own Federal Government's study into HSR possiblities.

I'd never fly to Melbourne again if there was a decent rail line there (3 hours as suggested). Especially with check-in and security procedures as they are now, it wouldn't be much slower, if at all.

Air travel will always be quicker than other form of transport...check-in at airports included. Mel & BNE airports have room to expand terminals...but to the topic, I agree with most of you , that SYD-MEL is the most viable high speed option. Only prob is choosing a system that works with existing rail infrastructure - TGV, Maglev...

I seem to remember seeing a study high speed rail said that the Sydney to Brisbane route was eqally viable when compared with the Melbourne to Sydney route. Melbourne had the advantage of bigger end to end market. Brisbane has the advantage of greater regional market, if you factor in expected population growth over the time period used to measure the project's viability. You'd need to use a time period of at least 20 years to analyse such a project's viability.

. Trains on the other hand are more suited to tourism, which is why high speed networks do well in countries such as france, Germany, Italy, Japan etc.


Rubbish! If tourism was the main reason for people to take the TGV/ ICEs then those lines wouldnt exist. Way too few pax

I seem to remember seeing a study high speed rail said that the Sydney to Brisbane route was eqally viable when compared with the Melbourne to Sydney route. Melbourne had the advantage of bigger end to end market. Brisbane has the advantage of greater regional market, if you factor in expected population growth over the time period used to measure the project's viability. You'd need to use a time period of at least 20 years to analyse such a project's viability.

:doh:

Is it so hard to actually read the whole thread before repeating a point that has been addressed at least twice already in the thread?!?

I give up.

For this to happen the eastern states would need a population of around 40 millions.

I agree tays... the maglev aint a cheap option and would make sence from newy south to canberra and on to Melbourne.


But a pov fast train with cheap fares would be of more benfit to the NSW--> QLD line IMO

But its a double edge sword isn't it. Sure, its cheaper to build a maglev or TGV-like train line for the syd-can-bris route, but in order to really compete with
airliners for the bris-syd route, they probably need to get the trip to 3 hours or less.

If I can fly return to Sydney for ~$250 most of the time, I am pretty much
going to take that option, I mean, for example, a 200kmph (average) tilt train could go there in ~6.5 hours and I wouldn't take it, even for like $50 - because for me, $250 is not much to spend for the convience of not having to sit in a train for 6 and half hours.

Sure there are going to be some holiday makers on budgets who will use it, but this market is comparitably small when compared to business and other frequent travellers.

Anyway, just my 2cents. But I do think some form of VFT is definately needed for syd-melb and possibly adelaide. I think in the long term, maglev is the way to go - already around 500kph and possibly upgradeble.

But its a double edge sword isn't it. Sure, its cheaper to build a maglev or TGV-like train line for the syd-can-bris route, but in order to really compete with
airliners for the bris-syd route, they probably need to get the trip to 3 hours or less.

If I can fly return to Sydney for ~$250 most of the time, I am pretty much
going to take that option, I mean, for example, a 200kmph (average) tilt train could go there in ~6.5 hours and I wouldn't take it, even for like $50 - because for me, $250 is not much to spend for the convience of not having to sit in a train for 6 and half hours.

Sure there are going to be some holiday makers on budgets who will use it, but this market is comparitably small when compared to business and other frequent travellers.

Anyway, just my 2cents. But I do think some form of VFT is definately needed for syd-melb and possibly adelaide. I think in the long term, maglev is the way to go - already around 500kph and possibly upgradeble.

I've noticed that even with the cheaper fares we've got now, it's usually cheaper to go by rail return.

Trust me, people will go for it if there's a decent service. The problem is that it really doesn't exist now, and some of the markets that would be lucrative (the Gold Coast would be a good example) aren't served.

Those that normally drive there (and that's quite a large number) would consider going by train if:

a) doing so didn't involve changing to a bus at 3:45am in the morning (yes, that's correct, I've been there),
b) the service didn't arrive at a ridiculous 5:40am
c) there was similar flexibility of arrival/departure times.

I agree tays... the maglev aint a cheap option and would make sence from newy south to canberra and on to Melbourne.


But a pov fast train with cheap fares would be of more benfit to the NSW--> QLD line IMO

In my opinion this will never be a near possibility in the near future, especially condering our, good old financially tight govt, Magnetic levitation, and the superconducting associations that go along with it is out of the question, until more feasable ways of providing sustanence for the SUPER cold temps needed for it.

Even "normal" trains using tilt tech, cant go past deliberations and proposals. IMHO its going to be while before we have a comprehensive high speed rail network, that even remotely compares with the french TGV.

P.

lalalalala as everyone's hellbent on giving their opinions which seem to be just that - irrespective of what has been discussed earlier, I might just post random facts as studied by our own government.

lalalalalalalalalalala......

http://www.dotars.gov.au/transinfra/vhst/s14_evaluation.aspx
14.2.3. Air Travel Market

Air travel is forecast to experience the strongest growth of any mode over the next fifty years. VHST is forecast to reduce EC air travel significantly. Without VHST, the inscope air market (excluding air transfer trips) is forecast to increase 5.5 times from 11 million trips in 2001 to 61.3 million trips in 2051, a percentage increase of 3.5% per annum. Air passenger kilometres are forecast to increase from 10 billion to 56 billion. These forecasts assume that the air service level remains at 2001 levels but that air fares increase at 0.75% pa in real terms.

The introduction of VHST reduces the air travel market to 17.9 million trips in 2021 from 30.8 million, a decrease of 12.9 million trips or 42%. With VHST in place, air travel is still forecast to increase but only to just over half the forecast market size in 2051. The forecast is for 33.5 million trips in 2051, a threefold increase on 2001 levels or 2.2% a year. Passenger kilometres are forecast to be slightly less affected by VHST. In 2021, VHST reduces air passenger kilometres from 37 billion to 23 billion, a reduction of 14 billion or 38%. With VHST, air passenger kilometres increase to 32 billion in 2051 an annual increase of 2.4% compared to 3.5% without VHST.

The size of the reduction is such that air infrastructure will almost certainly be different in the two situations. Moreover, the relationship between air demand and air service supply will be different with associated impacts for airport congestion.

14.2.8. VHST Market

VHST demand is forecast to increase from 22 million trips in 2011 to 66 million trips in 2051 - a threefold increase and an average annual increase of 2.8%. Passenger kilometres, measured in terms of road distance, are forecast to increase from 13 billion to 40 billion.

VHST is forecast to carry 34 million trips and 19 billion passenger kilometres in 2021. These figures compare with a total air market (including air transfers) of 22.8 million trips and 21.1 billion passenger kilometres with VHST. VHST is therefore forecast to achieve a 60% trip share and a 47% passenger kilometre share with respect to air travel.

In terms of the overall market, VHST is forecast to achieve a 12.5% trip share and 25% passenger kilometre share.

If the non-urban passenger market size for Australia as whole increases at the same rate as that projected for the base EC market, the VHST would obtain in 2021 a 9.25% share of the overall non-urban EC passenger transport market.

14.5.5. Airport Decongestion Benefits

By diverting patronage from air, decongestion benefits may be conferred to remaining users of air services. Alternatively public costs may be saved if additional airport capacity can be avoided or deferred.

Decongestion benefits were included in comparable US Department of Transport assessments of VHST rail in California and the Midwest. For the Midwest Regional Rail System, airport congestion relief and air carrier operating cost reductions were estimated at US$1.1 billion out of a total benefit of US$15.9 billion in 1998 dollars. Air congestion savings represented 7% of total project benefits.(11)

For East Coast Australia, benefit will depend on air congestion, which in turn will depend on whether additional air capacity such as a second Sydney airport is constructed. Defining the "Base Case" is therefore important. In the demand study, the Base Case assumes air service levels remain at 2001 levels.

Sydney Airport has an aircraft handling limit set by legislation at 80 movements per hour. The Airport is forecast to reach capacity between 2006 and 2011 depending on the use of larger aircraft(12). The Second Sydney Airport (SSA) EIS expects total aircraft movements to/from Sydney will increase from 291,000 in 1999-2000 to 381,000 in 2009-2010 and 480,000 in 2021-2022. If current trends in aircraft size and loading continue, Sydney Airport is forecast to reach capacity in 2006-2007. Alternatively, if regional passengers are carried in larger aircraft, the number of regional aircraft movements could be reduced to allow slots for domestic and international services. Under this scenario, capacity would be reached in 2010-2011.

If capacity is not increased, the quality of air service provision will deteriorate and/or demand may be constrained.

http://www.dotars.gov.au/transinfra/vhst/s15_aus_future.aspx

15.2 What transport task could an EC VHST perform?

Although travel times by VHST over the Sydney- Brisbane and Sydney - Melbourne routes could not equal those offered by air, an EC VHST could progressively capture a large share of the projected total market for air travel. Analysis indicates that, by 2021 with even a 250 km/h service, 31% of the VHST's patronage could be that diverted from air while, at 500 km/h, this proportion could rise to 47%.

Assuming a 350 km/h VHST, for Sydney to Canberra and Canberra to Melbourne, 72% and 59% respectively of the air market in 2021 could be captured with the possibility that, as air services reduce, yet more patronage could accrue to VHST

15.11 Arguments for an East Coast VHST

The following arguments for an EC VHST are drawn from this study and from other commentary on the subject:

* A VHST is a way in which reliable high speed alternative transport capacity can be injected into the longer-distance travel market in the East Coast corridor;
* An EC VHST can be complementary to air in the development of a fast transport network;
* Insufficient passenger transportation diversity in such a vital corridor places the economic well being of the Nation at risk. Air travel is routinely reported as being subject to increasing limitations imposed by factors including:
o Airport capacity and the need for capacity augmentation by way of extensions to runways and terminals, or even whole new airports,
o Peak-time pressure for landing slots at major airports being such as to discriminate against flights serving regional centres relative to those serving the major centres;
o Aviation energy costs;
o Environmental degradation, by aircraft noise and greenhouse gas emissions in particular; and - Operational, security or industrial threats.
* Equally, cars do not offer the travel time advantages that VHST's do and in and around the State capitals road corridors are becoming saturated.
* For some outer suburban commuters able to afford the service, a VHST would provide relief from overcrowding on normal suburban services.
* The patronage study has shown that any VHST from 250 km/h to 500 km/h could capture a significant market share - the faster the more so but at exponentially increasing cost.
* Eastern Australia could benefit from a new vision of urban and regional structure transcending State boundaries and a VHST system could provide a defining spine for the regions lying between the major conurbations. There is sufficient evidence from international experience to show that, provided other forms of regional development investment accompany it, VHST transport will be a change agent in those regions.
* A VHST system would bring equity of high-speed travel opportunity and mode choice to more people along the corridor. Similar VHST trains would operate over the whole of the corridor in contrast to air where some communities are served by commuter standard aircraft while others are served by larger, faster and more comfortable aircraft.
* As an example, at the level of investigation made in this study and under the assumptions made, a 350 km/h EC VHST satisfies two important criteria:
o commerciality criterion
o In its operating phase its revenues are assessed to exceed its costs and, if so, an operating subsidy would not be needed; and
o public benefit criterion -in its economic assessment, total benefits exceed total costs.
* If created as an SWSR double track railway, capacity on an EC VHST is likely to exceed requirements for many years. This additional capacity could be used to alleviate congestion on existing lines and also to provide for superior transit times for interstate freight. Investment in an appropriately designed constructed and operated EC VHST alignment could be beneficial to a wide range of rail operators.
* The major concerns of both the public and private sector are development and operating risk and consequent financial exposure - staging provides a means to limit such exposure.
* An EC VHST could be developed in discrete stages in a way that would allow operations to commence in sections of the corridor where they would have the best possible chance of being commercially successful.

And so many more here: http://www.dotars.gov.au/transinfra/vhst/contents.aspx

Cost to government = 30-40 BILLION dollars = it will never be built.

however that figure I think is 100% state owned and operated - in the era of successive Liberal governments and moderating state Labor governments, that wouldn't happen either.

anyhow, looking at 100% state owned and operated $40 billion over 15 years - how much did Johnny just piss up on his re-election? exactly.

Using the figures from the government:

Sydney-Brisbane @ 250kph = 20 billion
Melbourne-Sydney @ 350kph = 20 billion
Adelaide-Melbourne @ 250kph = 15 billion (very rough estimate)

Federal government pays for 50% $27.5 billion
Queensland pays $3-4 billion
New South Wales pays $10 billion
Victoria pays $10 billion
South Australia pays $5-6 billion (entry to Adelaide will be on par with the cost of entry/exit to Sydney).

If Victoria can borrow $2 billion in one year and not have it credit rating affected, then it can do $10 over 15 years. I don't buy the argument that they can't do it - they might not want to do it, but it's bollocks that it's unrealistic / fairy tale - and remember, all of the above is assuming it'll be a 100% public project. Governments are far less likely to have to worry about rolling stock which is a significant proportion of the overall price.

lalalalala as everyone's hellbent on giving their opinions which seem to be just that - irrespective of what has been discussed earlier, I might just post random facts as studied by our own government.

lalalalalalalalalalala......





And so many more here: http://www.dotars.gov.au/transinfra/vhst/contents.aspx

And that begs the question:

WHY THE HELL HAVEN'T THEY ACTED ON IT?

according to the news, the trains used are more likly to be shinkansens or bullet trains. i hope they're shinkansens! [or armour piecing bullet train ;)] the japs are apparently making 400km/h+ trains! :uh:
http://www.swiss-japan.org/guide_jp/gallery/photo/shinkansen500.jpg
also, has anyone got a vid of maglevs?

there's very little difference between Shinakansen, SNCF (TGV) and Deutsche Bahn ICE trains - they're all Steel wheel on steel rail technology, some may have their own little quirks, such as I think it was SNCF and its TGV sets that pioneered putting the bogie between two coaches instead of having two which reduces sway between carraiges and stabilises the train when moving etc etc etc.

TGV Atlantique has the SWSR record of 515kph - SNCF were primarly testing the boundaries of steel wheel on steel rail technology, as as you can see, there's still a shitload of room to grow.

according to the news, the trains used are more likly to be shinkansens or bullet trains. i hope they're shinkansens! [or armour piecing bullet train ;)] the japs are apparently making 400km/h+ trains! :uh:
http://www.swiss-japan.org/guide_jp/gallery/photo/shinkansen500.jpg
also, has anyone got a vid of maglevs?

Heh, nice. New track and a train like THAT would be nice.

It'd look great in CL colours.

:doh:

Is it so hard to actually read the whole thread before repeating a point that has been addressed at least twice already in the thread?!?

I give up.

I read the whole thread. I've also read a few of the many different studies done on high speed rail over the last couple decades. Is it a surprise that different studies could come to different conclusions?

Its not as if there is an exact science to predicting patronage on high speed railway lines. I know one past study into Brisbane suburban high speed rail was based on giving people a lot of hypothetical choices between '60 minute train trip with 20 minute frequency' and drive by car in a random survey in the city. Or maybe you could note that in Eurpoe X% of people will catch a train in Y circumstance and try and guess how that would extrapolate to Australia.

http://www.swiss-japan.org/guide_jp/gallery/photo/shinkansen500.jpg
also, has anyone got a vid of maglevs?

Yup I have all the vids of the MLX-01 the sexiest train in existence.
The Nozomi pictured are sex on rails too... very nice I hope we get these if we dont get maglev.

Knock yourself out http://mlx01.fc2web.com/
BTW the MLX01 is pictured on page two in countrylink livery wedge end and below with the other end (double cusp) showing...
http://mlx01.fc2web.com/photo/mlx01/photo/y9612181.jpg

BACK TO REALITY! :)

http://robterrace.co.uk/videos/pics/pendotam1.jpg (http://robterrace.co.uk/videos/pendotam1.MOV)

4 meg video. That's a Pendoilino on the WCML easily doing 200kph I'd say. AS IF NOT WANT THAT!?!!

more really cool vids: http://videos.robterrace.co.uk/

specifically get this: http://robterrace.co.uk/videos/4302543192daw.mov
and this: http://robterrace.co.uk/videos/hstnightblp.MOV

I am so going to spend a day at Tamworth when I'm over there next year. weeeee!

I agree pretty much with Tayser.
300+ kmh operation is really only necessary on the Syd-Can-Alb-Mel Corridor. And for a train to achieve such a high average speed you need a decent alignment and very few stops. So then you need to run frequent local services on the same track or on the old alignment, to feed into the express network.
As for Mel-Ade or Syd-Bris I'm thinking average 200kmh operation with some major realignment (not to the extent of Syd-Mel tho) run by Diesel or Electric Tilts.

However Mel to Ade would be cheap compared to the other corridors for a TGV as its relatively flat the majority of the way except for the Adelaide Hills.

Think of how many less cars and planes their would be. I would certainly catch it rather than a plan if i could get from Adl to Melb in say 3 hours. If the cost was the same as a plane. You would save on the cost of a cab from Tulla to the Melb CBD which is about $60bucks as the train would get you to the CBD.

60% more people fly between Melbourne and Sydney compared to Brisbane and Sydney, that is why it is more attractive for fast rail.

Passenger movements on Domestic Air Routes (Year ending December 2004)

Melbourne-Sydney: 6.2 million (10% growth 03-04)
Brisbane-Sydney: 3.9 million (5.1% growth 03-04)

This is true if you run a direct service point to point, but the east coast from Brisbane-Sydney offers much more traffic if you're including all the regional stops. I can see many people making the journey on rail only half way, as air tickets are pretty cheap capital-capital, but much more expensive from regional centres.

Once a true highspeed (300kph + ) corridor is established, Canberra Airport could potentially be closed or converted to a private airfield (latter's probably the best option). It's hardly needed anyway, being only 3 or 4 hours from Sydney.

Actually I think quite the opposite. Canberra airport would be expanded and start to take the load off Sydney's airport which will be well over capacity by the time something like this is completed. And with all the votes that would be lost over a second airport for Sydney it makes a great case for federal funding.

Not many of these options make sense now, but neither does a half arsed option. They should start planning for when they do make sense, and start building the sections that do make sense. Like you can imagine a Brisbane - Coff's section making sense, but you want to start a section from Sydney heading north that will be 100% compatible as well. (And even these first sections are 10-15 years down the track.). 800km is just too far for HSR to make sense between stops, even in countries with larger populations they don't run that length. The other thing is of course freight, which would make great use of such a system.

Eventually these systems will make sense, in 20 years with Brisbane's population passing the current population of Melbourne, with huge populations all down the east coast. People are going to want a way to get around even to live in one part of the coast and work in another.

Absolutely. Canberra is in a perfect position to take a significant load off KSIA - internationally speaking, but also a 3h MElbourne-Sydney rail service would significantly reduce the amount of air traffic between the two (bonus for everyone involved really, when you think about the NIMBYs who live near KSIA, the price of Av fuel and the fares involved - an economy seat on a train would likely be on par with a no frills airline seat, and a first class rail seat would be at least $300 cheaper than a current Qantas Business class seat).

In regards to Canberra though, I think there should only be one station: on the Civic/Campbell side of the airport (linked to the airport itself of course) sort of like how Stratford (London Olympic site) will have a similar line for London-Paris eurostar traffic.

http://thehoddlegrid.net/dump/canberra_map.gif

Stratford:

http://www.ctrl.co.uk/photos/contractLarge.asp?ID=4347

Potential also to extend the trunk bus routes that they have up there (Tuggeranong-Woden-Civic-Belconnen) to give the airport & station better PT connections to Civic and the Parliament circle.

More High Speed Rail porn, 7 meg WMV:

[http://rail.mjspencer.com/images/hstsatdidcot.JPG (http://rail.mjspencer.com/videos/hstsatdidcot.wmv)

^ insanity, look how close the guy is standing to the edge of the platform when those things fly past :eek2:

More comparisons.

Based on Grollo's figure of 6.2 million people flying between Melbourne and Sydney per day (end to end) that's just under 17,000 per day, likely to be more like 20,000 per weekday and 10,000-12,000 on Sat and Sun.

20,000 people per weekday is roughly 53 TGV Réseau trains worth.

Considering the government expects a market share of 20% to begin with, expanding to 40% 20 years down the track, that's roughly 11-12 trains per day between Melbourne & Sydney (6, 7, 8, 9, 11am, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9pm) to start with.

Similar corridors in Europe: Paris-Marseille, about 750km, 3h10m journey time (max line speed is 300, 260-280 in some older sections). The world record for a rail journey over 1000km (Channel Tunnel to Marseille) is 3h30m (average speed was 306kph, and the max line speed reached was 360kph (controlled conditions .: could go higher). Melbourne to Sydney is about the same length as Lille (triangle junction to Paris/London/Brussells on below map) to Marseille (south coast) - bout 850km, and if a train averaged 300kph and hit tops of 350kph, then I think it's fair to say you could get journey times down to 3hours flat with two intermediate stops: one in Albury and one in Canberra.

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/LVG_Est/images/TGV-network.jpg\

4h services could run: Melbourne - Seymour - Wangaratta - Albury - Gundagai - [Wagga Wagga] - Canberra - Goulburn - Mittagong - Sydney. With a slower electrifed & upgraded original route from Gundagai through Wagga then on a newly built line to join up with the High Speed line in the west of Canberra.

Just on the Paris to Marseille corridor, if you look at the major cities en route, the ones that would only be served by premium services (Marseille, Lyon and Paris, you're only looking at a population of about 15 million people who live within an hour of one of the big city stations - when you compare to Melbourne - Sydney, you'd have about 10 million within an hour of the TGV stations:

Melbourne + Geelong + Ballarat (Vic RFR will put both within an hour of Spencer Street) = 4 million.
Seymour + Wangarratta + Albury + Gundagai + Wagga + Goulburn + Mittagong = at least a million
Canberra = 300,000
Sydney + bit more of Central Coast, and parts of Southern coasts = 5 million.

To begin with 5-6 'stopper' services (that pattern above) and 6-7 'express' services (Mel-Abx-Can-Syd) per day wouldn't be too much to ask for I don't think. And compared to the TGV Med corridor (only 12 trains a day between Paris Gare de Lyon and Marseille), I think you'll find that having 'too few people' is just bollocks and a fast train service would be very well patronised.

bear in mind that 20k per weekday figure is only MEL-SYD end to end traffic, and doesn't include SYD-CAN or MEL-CAN traffic (Grollo: does that source have Melbourne and Sydney to Canberra traffic listed? I'd be interested to see).

Pricing comparisons:

Paris Gare de Lyon - Marseille St Charles: 3h 12m, First Class $88AUD
Economy: $60
[Melbourne - Sydney] - Qantas Business Equivalent: $555AUD
Virgin Blue Equivalent: $109

Paris Gare de Lyon - Lyon Part Dieu: 1h 55m, First Class $72AUD
Economy: $44
[Melbourne-Canberra] - Qantas Business Equivalent: $500-900
Virgin Blue Equivalent: $109

Marseille St Charles - Lyon Part Dieu: 1h 38m, First Class $72AUD
[Sydney-Canberra] - Qantas Business Equivalent: $300

TGV economy fares were on sale, add another $20 to get the normal summer fares.
TGV First class fares are on 'sale' - add about another $50 for normal First prices, and then compare to the only 'first class' & 'quick' travel between our equivalent cities and note what the lack of competition is doing for business traffic.

Qantas, you are a f**king sham - plain and simple.

one thing to consider is that europe is much denser than australia and australians don't seem to like PT that much (i dont know why). competition with airlines might make it unworthy.

i can tell how annoying kingsford is already. highways, noise and the airport itself is already at capcity.

european population density becomes less relevant when you take the stopping patterns of these premium services into consideration - as I said, Paris - Lyon - Marseille and other selected areas that might just have a TGV station between those three majors don't have that much up on Melbourne - Canberra - Sydney. The only thing that does set the TGV Med corridor apart from our capital corridor is the connections from other TGV lines and international traffic. Btw flying is a form of public transport as well - it's just operated by the private sector.

If it were a slower more frequently stopping service like between Sydney and Brisbane and Melbourne & Adelaide then yeah it would definitely come into play.

I'm fairly sure there's a fair bit of subsidisation from the govt for running the TGV. They just can't afford to lose face against the Japs.

SNCF is the national railways, it's 100% subsidised! :lol:

I highly doubt it's 100%. Some of SNCF is supported by its own revenue from fares.

you missed the joke ;)

I got the joke. But it was weeeeaaaaak.

I did search for a relevant thread, but this is the closest I could find.

Anyway, last night on Channel 2's "Q and A" a member of the audience prompted the panel to answer on a VFT from Sydney-Canberra & perhaps Melbourne. Anthony Albanese answered 1st and said that the Fed Gov was looking it via its Infrastructure Oz iniatives and some kind of announcement on a proposal may be made by the end of the year. He made it clear that it is certainlty being looked at.

Well, the Fed Gov has been talking this on & off since the 70s.

BTW Fabian was in the audence and asked a question - tee hee :wave:

From being there in person he did say that the Infrastructure OZ initative is a $12bn fund and he is concerned with a lack of proper rail services along the east coast.

http://www.hslzuid.nl/hsl/uk/hslzuid/

Amsterdam (Zuid) to Antwerp will be operational soon! It was delayed because of the signalling problem but i'm sure it will be rectified by October. Thalys/TGV will have duopoly over the new high speed line. 300km/h maximum speed. There is already train service available from Amsterdam to Antwerp which goes at maximum speed of 160km/h. I travelled to Belgium every fortnight and it's a well organised network. Goes from Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Roosendal, Antwerp.

The new line will cut the time travel by half as it will have it's own dedicated new 100km long line. What i also like is that it will be low-maintenance in the long term.

Quality contstruction. Two thumbs up!

Wish we have this in Australia. Amsterdam is proposing a maglev train linking the airport, city centre and Almere.
http://expert.typepad.com/maglev_monitor/2007/11/new-maglev-plan.html

I hope they get on with it soon before construction costs make it impossible

I hope they get on with it soon before construction costs make it impossible

What i would like to happen is to build this during recession being funded by Infrastructure Australia fund. Labour market would be less restrained.