High Speed Rail..a Scam?

[ryeman]

The Conversation today has a v interesting article on the ? economics of HSR in Oz.
A 2009 study (pre GFC data) from a Spanish university found that each SEAT on Europe's HS trains had to be subsidised to the tune of $A65,000 pa!
That's in a vastly more densely populated area than us!
Paris-Lyon and Tokyo-Osaka are the worlds only profitable train routes.

[Road_Warrior]

Well, if the cost of the east coast HSR is to be believed, then it will have to be subsidised. If people want it that is. But...$114 Billion...DAMN.

[ryeman]

The proposal for 7 stops in NSW on the northern section at 30kph average GREATER than anyone else's max speed makes its times ridiculous.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Look at where these types of transport work well. High concentrated communities, small land area and a population used to public transport being the norm for the majority of people.

That will never happen here, not till we have a population of 10+ million per large city and 4+ mil for smaller cities.

Running and keeping a car will have to be stupidly expensive over public transport and transport costs will be so small that you will not baulk at the price.

You would also not have to look at a timetable or online to see if you can get to a place with a train / bus etc.

Many will know that I have been to Sth Korea several times and have stayed for several weeks / months. Fast trains work there because they follow the model I described above. In fact, the KTX (their bullet train) runs at a profit and did so very soon after it was finished.

None if my friends there have a car, some have a bike / scooter. They do public transport very well but only because the economic conditions are right.

Of course, the first $1/4 Billion will be wasted on committees, focus groups, feasibility studies, environmental impact and local consultants who are as clueless as the people hiring them - just like they did with the 'almost' implementation of the 'Opal Card'.....

[ryeman]

My guess is that it will be funded starting in Sydney and then, predictably run out of money after it reaches Canberra which I suspect is actually all the bureaucrats want, of course paid for by the Oz taxpayer.

[flappist]

Hey how about an autobahn that restricted to vehicles travelling OVER 150km/h and no trucks, busses, trailers or vehicles that do not have ABS, DSC and airbags?

[ryeman]

Has the Melbourne-Sydney freeway been completed yet?
Fraser Govt promised it nearly 40 years ago

[LG17]

Yes it's a scam!
We simply don't have the population to support it.
The best we can hope for is competition between the airlines and decent double highways to or through major centres.
Australia would be a total basket case if it was attempted.

[ryeman]

Expect the self serving media to keep up the pressure though!

[Nikked]

Whats the projected ticket price?

I love the train ride from Tamworth to Sydney, its a long trip (6 hr.), but its a nice relaxing way of transport. If I want to get to Sydney quick, just fly. Tickets are as little as $80 one way (about $120 return on the train).

The money would be better spent on upgrading the highways, and facilities for rail freight in long haul sectors.

[2011G6E]

Australia is a real oddity when it comes to trains.
Look at our history...we have a vast continent with goods needing to be transported huge distances, so what do we do? Do as the USA has and make the first choice to send thousands of tons of stuff all at once on efficient railway lines? Nope...let's stick everything on hundreds of massive semi trailers that the roads were never designed for, and ship goods that way...oh, and rip up whatever freight railway lines were left so we can never go back to trains again...

...yep...makes perfect sense...

If any country should have embraced rail for long distance freight, it's Australia...but somewhere we badly dropped the ball. I recall one image of a reasonable length double-stack container freight train, and it said "This one train removes 160 semi trailers from the road...you tell us which is more efficient".

Passenger movements here are a problem though...without a lot of people travelling by rail long distance, it remains a niche market for tourists, instead of an "of course" thing that people would just use as a first choice to travel long distances.

[BHDOGS]

Typical sucking up to the eastern states again

[xtremerus]

If the Melbourne-Brisbane freight rail line can't get going, how the hell would a fast passenger line be profitable??

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Australia is a real oddity when it comes to trains.
Look at our history...we have a vast continent with goods needing to be transported huge distances, so what do we do? Do as the USA has and make the first choice to send thousands of tons of stuff all at once on efficient railway lines? Nope...let's stick everything on hundreds of massive semi trailers that the roads were never designed for, and ship goods that way...oh, and rip up whatever freight railway lines were left so we can never go back to trains again...

...yep...makes perfect sense...

If any country should have embraced rail for long distance freight, it's Australia...but somewhere we badly dropped the ball. I recall one image of a reasonable length double-stack container freight train, and it said "This one train removes 160 semi trailers from the road...you tell us which is more efficient".

Passenger movements here are a problem though...without a lot of people travelling by rail long distance, it remains a niche market for tourists, instead of an "of course" thing that people would just use as a first choice to travel long distances.

I wrote a paper about this once...I'll see if I can find it (or the relevant paragraphs from it)

[ryeman]

We effectively subsidise both rail freight and heavy trucking ( massively over dimension foundation of our 'freeways').
To me the only rational approach is a user pays system such as tollways, not popular of course but the FREEway was never rational unless it was to buy votes.
Then 'invest' in quality public transport which will attract more commuter people off the roads and be economically sustainable.

[pmacc]

For High Speed rail to be 'worth it' it has to be cheaper and quicker than an airline. even at the 350km/h its supposed to be travelling its still slower than a plane that has been delayed.

but a form of land transport doing more that 110km/h in this country yeah right! ACA and TT will be starting stories about hoon trains

[mik]

actually a lot of freight goes by train, but door to door freight trucks are very efficient, as for the high speed train, it`s probably not a bad thing , but i would rather see them spend the money on and underground rail system in the cities, there`s no getting away from the fact that population in big cities is/has outgrown the transport infrastructure, especially in melbourne, we need road and rail updated together not just one or the other,
a good start would be getting rid of the above ground track in the city and burbs and losing 170 rail crossings for a start(huge bottle neck causers and safety hazard).

we already have lots of cheap aircraft flights for long distance travel.......... why waste money on doubling up on a service that is already catered for?

[Franco Cozzo]

Even if you used a VLine VLocity 160 train for passenger transport, it would be quicker than whats on offer currently? The older Vline trains were limited to 130km/h, these are 160km/h. Going along Melbourne-Lancefield road, up against the VLine train it kills it past everyone on the road.

How fast does the Sydney - Melbourne train go?

Surely it would have to be faster than doing 110km/h up the hume?

I sent Mum on the Overland train from Melbourne Southern Cross to Adelaide, and it took 14 hours O_o, why so slow?

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by pmacc

For High Speed rail to be 'worth it' it has to be cheaper and quicker than an airline. even at the 350km/h its supposed to be travelling its still slower than a plane that has been delayed.

but a form of land transport doing more that 110km/h in this country yeah right! ACA and TT will be starting stories about hoon trains

I think speed is not the only issue. A person on a plane can easily waste 2hrs on top of a 1 hr flight, say Syd to Melb or Bris with check in, boarding and baggage collection. Trains are much more time efficient in that regard. Your 1hr flight just became 3hrs of time used to get somewhere.

Then there is what you can do while on a plane, not much. I think a fast train would attract business travelers who perhaps value the ability to make calls, access WiFi, have more space to work and the ability to plug electronic devices in.

[cheap]

Yep the latest "proposed" fast train is a scan, pure and simple.

• There is no money for it
• It is so far away as to be totally irrelevant, hence Albanese can make whatever promise he likes
• There is no business case which proves it is remotely viable

Lets see, there was proposal for a fast train in 1984, then in 1986, and in 1993, another proposal in 2000 and then another in 2003, do you see a pattern emerging?

It is just another pre election stunt intended to get the 'youngsters' all excited, the more experienced (older) people realise there is no happy ending. There will be many more stunts from both parties in the coming months...

[XW WA]

simpsons monorail episode - Anyone seen it

[mik]

Originally Posted by XW WA

simpsons monorail episode - Anyone seen it

lol no, does it have some resemblance to our dream world high speed train?

could be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEZjzsnPhnw

[Fairlane]

Im all for high speed rail. Ever been to Japan?

Yes I know the population is much bugger, etc. But it is amazing. We did the distance of 1600 klms in around 6 hours on three trains. All dead on time and we were on the slow trains at 320 kmh. Way more comfortable than a plane and no luggage and security to stuff around with no $7 airport coffee and you end up in the middle of the city not out in woop woop.

This is a long term plan and by the time it gets built Australia will probably have 40 million people and most of Northern NSW will be developed. Not to mention it frees up the other lines for more rail freight.

[ryeman]

Seven stops s of the Tweed does not a HS train make.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Fairlane

Im all for high speed rail. Ever been to Japan?

Yes I know the population is much bugger, etc. But it is amazing. We did the distance of 1600 klms in around 6 hours on three trains. All dead on time and we were on the slow trains at 320 kmh. Way more comfortable than a plane and no luggage and security to stuff around with no $7 airport coffee and you end up in the middle of the city not out in woop woop.

This is a long term plan and by the time it gets built Australia will probably have 40 million people and most of Northern NSW will be developed. Not to mention it frees up the other lines for more rail freight.

It's not the population, it's the population density that makes it viable in Japan. I don't even think it's a good idea for the US because US is so spread out.

[Maka]

Its not a scam but imo "aspirational rhetoric" lol! Instead of HSR, how about a nation building exercise like our own first indigenous carmaker?

cheers, Maka

[pottery beige]

they're off their heads..

[2011G6E]

With our tiny population (a lot of large cities overseas have more people), the government should just run, well, just about everything. Water, power, transport, energy, the lot. It doesn't make a profit? So what? It's a service the public needs, just do it, as long as it comes close to breaking even (or even in some cases runs at a loss if its a service the public needs) then that should be adequate.

For too long we've been lied to that governments shouldn't run services, that the public sector can do it much better...no they can't. Once you have private ownership and shareholders, one thing and one thing only matters...not service to the public, not efficient running, not keeping people employed, but return to shareholders, and that's it...nothing else matters as long as those share numbers keep rising.

Look at the postal service...for decades governments have suggested maybe it might be better privatised, but they aren't allowed to by legislation. If it was privatised, do you honestly think that a stamp to send a letter across town or across the country would be the same 60 cents, no matter the destination? Of course not...that's the difference between government and private...government can be legislated to provide a service at a regulated cost...private only wants returns, year on year, increasing and growing for their shareholders.

Transport should be government run...full stop. Projects should be just built as needed, and not worry about eventual profits or lack thereof.

Of course this would mean a huge change in the selfish way governments think they should run the country...and it just won't happen...

[mik]

Yes the privatisation of services has done little except put prices up , remove services and relieve the gov departments of responsibility, people focus on dollars and not benefit, a sad country we have become.

[deesun]

It will never happen- never.