THE push for an east coast, high-speed, rail link has received a boost, with the Abbott government holding a series of high-level meetings with Japanese, Chinese, Spanish and French rail companies in Australia and abroad.

Trade Minister Andrew Robb said the talks had included discussions on financial models to make the project viable, despite its hefty estimated price tag of $110 billion and the government’s fiscal constraints.

Renewed interest in the project comes as Central Japan Railway Company declared Japanese tunnelling methods could strip 20-30 per cent off the projected cost. The company, Japan’s most profitable high-speed rail operator, has also revealed that Japanese government lender JBIC is prepared to bankroll construction if Australia shares the risk.

Discussions to make the project viable?  Interesting.

Japanese, Chinese Spanish and French would be in the running.  Who would have the better technology?

The Chinese might bring cash to the table?

The Chinese and/or the Japanese could finance this out of petty cash and build it with one eye closed.

The biggest problem remains (IMHO) the integration at each end with existing transport modes and the fact that all plans envisgae Canberra as a branch line.  Economies of scale would be enormous if the route between Sydney and Melbourne would pass directly through Canberra.  The Dai-Shimizu tunnel, 36 years old, is 22km long and bridges are easy at any length and height, so I will accept no arguments on the grounds of technical feasibility.

The Chinese and/or the Japanese could finance this out of petty cash and build it with one eye closed.

The biggest problem remains (IMHO) the integration at each end with existing transport modes and the fact that all plans envisgae Canberra as a branch line. Economies of scale would be enormous if the route between Sydney and Melbourne would pass directly through Canberra. The Dai-Shimizu tunnel, 36 years old, is 22km long and bridges are easy at any length and height, so I will accept no arguments on the grounds of technical feasibility.

Financing (who will lend me the money) is not such a big problem.  Funding (who will ultimately pay) very much is.

Given the scale of the project, worrying about integration with other modes is a detail.  When you are talking a total cost of around $100 billion, spending a billion extra each in the main capitals to improve the ability to get people to and from the terminals is "petty cash".  I disagree with the premise anyway, the terminals as proposed in the phase two study are located smack bang next to (or in) major transport nodes in the state capitals.  That's a spectacularly better set-up than the integration offered by the main competing modes - air and road.

Running through services into and out of Canberra makes no sense.  Much of the anticipated volume is state capital to state capital passenger traffic, hence a fair proportion of the state capital to state capital trains will be express.  Despite the additional length of a deviation through Canberra (and despite the associated increase in total construction cost versus the spur proposal) they will not stop there.  Deviating the through line through Canberra will simply piss off those in the urban areas living near the tracks with additional noise/land resumptions etc, piss off passengers on those through services with the additional travel time and piss off those who are paying for construction with the additional up front cost.  

Running the line through Canberra makes about as much sense as directing all passenger air traffic between Sydney and Melbourne to do at least a touch-and-go on Canberra airport's runways.

the cost of $110bn could be brought down by 20 to 30 per cent by using tunnels cut to suit Japan’s Shinkansen bullet trains.

What are these cost reductions? Different tunelling techniques? Smaller tunnels, which would reduce speeds along the line and therefore the competitiveness of the route?

What are these cost reductions? Different tunelling techniques? Smaller tunnels, which would reduce speeds along the line and therefore the competitiveness of the route?

was the intention to always make canberra a branch or was this recent? i remember speedrail where the main line went through canberra to melbourne.

when they come to build this i am hoping the chinese or japanese will engineer and save the australian taxpayers a lot of cash as they are far better at large engineering projects.

was the intention to always make canberra a branch or was this recent? i remember speedrail where the main line went through canberra to melbourne.

A Canberra branchline has been in vogue since at least the High Speed Rail Study Phase 1 report was released in 2011. I too was initially opposed to the idea but it makes more and more sense due to the time savings for capital-to-capital expresses and cost reductions from avoiding approaching Canberra from the south.

A Canberra branchline has been in vogue since at least the High Speed Rail Study Phase 1 report was released in 2011. I too was initially opposed to the idea but it makes more and more sense due to the time savings for capital-to-capital expresses and cost reductions from avoiding approaching Canberra from the south.

how is the branchline to be connected?  are the powers keen on a canberra to melbourne and a canberra to sydney service being separate from the sydney to melbourne service?

how is the branchline to be connected? are the powers keen on a canberra to melbourne and a canberra to sydney service being separate from the sydney to melbourne service?

Using a turnout, switch or set of points, depending on your terminology preference.

If you are interested, then why don't you read the relevant report (or at least its summary)!  You'll find it at https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/

I don't know who or what the "powers" are, but the model is more like an airline service than a suburban train - that is for major origin-destination pairs you get on a dedicated "flight" at your origin that goes direct to your destination.  The milk run style services are only for minor pairings.

how is the branchline to be connected? are the powers keen on a canberra to melbourne and a canberra to sydney service being separate from the sydney to melbourne service?

Presumably, a whole lot like this: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.5705777,3.1437615,2328m/data=!3m1!1e3
There's a clearer diagram here:

I believe the assumption is that there will at least be the following services operating on the line:

• Melbourne-Sydney Express


• Melbourne-Canberra Express turning into:


• Sydney-Canberra Express


• Melbourne-Canberra Stopping All Stations turning into:


• Sydney-Canberra Stopping All Stations

Dream on, folks.

The standard Australian rate of progress is:
Talk about it: 20 years.
Studies by Consultants: Minimum of four - about one every five years.
Changes of Government: At least three.
Initial planning: After the 20 years and studies; lasts about two years.
Stab-in-the-dark costing: Over the next two months.
Panic about the cost: Immediate.
Action: Nil.

Then, ten years later the cycle starts again.

For examples, refer to:
Melbourne to Geelong electrification.
Ditto Melbourne to Melton.
Rail link to Melbourne airport.
Roofing of Jolimont rail yards.
Et al, ad nauseam.

The thread says it's "back on track". It's not even close to the track.

Presumably, a whole lot like this: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.5705777,3.1437615,2328m/data=!3m1!1e3
There's a clearer diagram here:

I believe the assumption is that there will at least be the following services operating on the line:

• Melbourne-Sydney Express


• Melbourne-Canberra Express turning into:


• Sydney-Canberra Express


• Melbourne-Canberra Stopping All Stations turning into:


• Sydney-Canberra Stopping All Stations

Nah, IF it happens it will be

Syd-Mel-Syd services

Syd-Can-Syd services.

Those from Mel to Canberra will change at Goulburn with a timed connection from Sydney to Can and in reverse a timed connection with Syd-Mel.

Qantas fly about 11 flights a day during week between Mel and Can and some are not even a lowly 737 size. This won't justify a frequent direct service but I'll concede say one,maybe two each way in morning and afternoon peak

That nice interchange in the photo (I saw a few in France) would be a cool few hundred million $ and take alot of space and for Canberra not justified. Also makes it hard to have a central station in the area like Goulburn for interchanging. Why not have the Mel-Can train simply stop at Gouburn and while pax are getting on/off the driver changes in or indeed there is a new driver for this leg. I believe Marseilles in France has trains come in one direction and leave the reverse. With 50:50 seating each way makes little difference to pax.

Regarding the Canberra branch, I also highly doubt you could justify 100% duplicated track with at very best one service an hour. at +250km/hr the train will do the branch in less than 25min. Extend the duplicated track at start and end for say 5-10km and long 10km passing loop in middle.

The biggest way to kill the HSR project, apart from the fact it costs an absolute fortune with no hope of ever coming even remotely close to break even would be to run via Canberra. Its longer and needs a massive speed limiting tunnel (read bucket load of $) for very little return.

Regards
Shane

Nah, IF it happens it will be

Syd-Mel-Syd services

Syd-Can-Syd services.

Those from Mel to Canberra will change at Goulburn with a timed connection from Sydney to Can and in reverse a timed connection with Syd-Mel.

Qantas fly about 11 flights a day during week between Mel and Can and some are not even a lowly 737 size. This won't justify a frequent direct service but I'll concede say one,maybe two each way in morning and afternoon peak

That nice interchange in the photo (I saw a few in France) would be a cool few hundred million $ and take alot of space and for Canberra not justified. Also makes it hard to have a central station in the area like Goulburn for interchanging. Why not have the Mel-Can train simply stop at Gouburn and while pax are getting on/off the driver changes in or indeed there is a new driver for this leg. I believe Marseilles in France has trains come in one direction and leave the reverse. With 50:50 seating each way makes little difference to pax.

Regarding the Canberra branch, I also highly doubt you could justify 100% duplicated track with at very best one service an hour. at +250km/hr the train will do the branch in less than 25min. Extend the duplicated track at start and end for say 5-10km and long 10km passing loop in middle.

Who knows what or if it will happen, but the stopping pattern envisaged in the phase two report is more along the lines of what LancedDendrite describes.  Bearing in mind when the complete southern part of the system was proposed to be available and hence the potential for demand growth between now and then, that pattern seems reasonable.  With peak service frequency of perhaps four trains per direction per hour extensive single track sections would be a nuisance.  But that's a detail at this stage.

Who knows what or if it will happen, but the stopping pattern envisaged in the phase two report is more along the lines of what LancedDendrite describes. Bearing in mind when the complete southern part of the system was proposed to be available and hence the potential for demand growth between now and then, that pattern seems reasonable. With peak service frequency of perhaps four trains per direction per hour extensive single track sections would be a nuisance. But that's a detail at this stage.

True, but have to wonder how many trains per hour could a city like Canberra support in peak? Anything higher than 1 to each of the two capitals seems a bit high.

For Abbott to state he wants to make the project viable suggests at least in his mind or the mind of the federal coalition the project currently is not.

There are many on this forum who think this project would not return iall costs to the Australian people. I am not one I those people.

These projects are designed to support productivity and provide options for interstate travel. They also provide some competition.

Bring the project forward and hae it delivered by people who know how to build these rail networks.

We need European or Japanese engineering.

True, but have to wonder how many trains per hour could a city like Canberra support in peak? Anything higher than 1 to each of the two capitals seems a bit high.

There are 30 flights each day, each direction, between SYD and CBR.  That's about 2500 seats in each direction.  Add to that the road coaches, 15 per day in each direction, 650+ seats in each direction.  Most of these services are well patronised, let's call it around 3000 the demand for transport one-way between SYD and CBR.  Plus those who use the highway in their own car or a rental car, some of whom would take the bus (if it were faster) or the plane (if it were cheaper).

So on the basis of price, speed, comfort, reliability and convenience (including convenience during transit), how many of those 3000-odd would be persuaded to use the train instead?  And how much new business could be generated, from those who shun flying for example?  I say, 1000 per day (each direction) at the most.  That's certainly not 1 train per hour - maybe 6 trains per day?

There are 30 flights each day, each direction, between SYD and CBR. That's about 2500 seats in each direction. Add to that the road coaches, 15 per day in each direction, 650+ seats in each direction. Most of these services are well patronised, let's call it around 3000 the demand for transport one-way between SYD and CBR. Plus those who use the highway in their own car or a rental car, some of whom would take the bus (if it were faster) or the plane (if it were cheaper).

So on the basis of price, speed, comfort, reliability and convenience (including convenience during transit), how many of those 3000-odd would be persuaded to use the train instead? And how much new business could be generated, from those who shun flying for example? I say, 1000 per day (each direction) at the most. That's certainly not 1 train per hour - maybe 6 trains per day?

So... first you argue that through routing via Canberra was [one of] the "biggest problem", now you argue that it doesn't support more than one train per hour?

Forecasts of patronage, given the many and varied assumptions, are available ... in the phase two report. In 2050 (remember - you need to project current figures forward over two decades to get an idea of what things might be like when the system starts running, let alone reaches maturity), the Sydney-Canberra service pattern is expected to move over 18800 people per day, while the Melbourne-Canberra service is expected to move 13900 people per day. This includes people picked up from and delivered to intermediate stations along the service pattern.

(Current major airport pair passenger numbers and airport total passengers are available from BITRE. Canberra gets about 3 million passengers a year, say of which perhaps two million (adding numbers for Melbourne and Sydney together, completely ignoring Brisbane and Adelaide and the other minor pair airports) are likely to switch to HSR. Plus any stolen from buses or private vehicles or regional trains - which might be another million per year. That's give you a bit over 8000 per day for the current market. The initial train configuration nominates 520 passengers, if you have a load factor of 75% at Canberra that's about 400 per train - so you are looking at about twenty services per day.)

These projects are designed to support productivity and provide options for interstate travel. They also provide some competition.

Coffee improves my productivity. I therefore expect you to pay for all the coffee that I drink.

There are plenty of options for interstate travel. There is plenty of competition.

While "everybody" wants this project, "nobody" wants to actually pay for it. I think it is great that moves are under way (at a federal and state level) to continue the planning for this project, but until "nobody" becomes "lots of people" this thing is a pipe dream.

how is the branchline to be connected?  are the powers keen on a canberra to melbourne and a canberra to sydney service being separate from the sydney to melbourne service?

It's not a suburban train.  


Making any service from Melbourne to Sydney stop in Canberra is just silly, especially when the distributions aren't even.


The only reason you would have Melb-Sydney go through Canberra is to save money, but given the f.o. ranges to the south this is not the reality.

based on your post the branch is a good idea.  if you take a closer look at the queensland area of the map there is also a branch to the gold coast.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_International_Airport

Syd - Can is just over 1mpa

Can - Mel is just under 1mpa

Bris - Can is just over 1mpa

Adel - Can is barely 200kpa

Adelaide - Can will remain on a plane

Bris - Can will mostly remain on a plane, the loss to rail would be insignificant with a 3-4hr trip just to get to Sydney.

I would expect HSR to grab +75% of Syd - Can, 750k in today's numbers and probably double that from bus and car.

The problem with Mel - Can is how many come from Mel? Some would be from Tas, maybe Adelaide and other minor routes. Lets say 50% with maybe a few hundred k from Southern NSW. So again 750k.

1.5mpa all up, 4100 ave per day. Say 5000-6000 weekdays. Some where between 10 and 15 trains each direction. Still 1 per hour to Sydney and one per hour to Mel at most, but in 20 years double this.

I noticed in the proposals, that it said they would build regional stations out of town to save cost and reduce the impact on communities. I don't know about you, but I think that's not the best way of doing it. I think they should have a branch line into the regional centers and as it approaches town, it slows down to a lower speed to reduce the impact on that community and could even use the existing line though town if traffic volumes allowed it. Train pulls up at existing train station and people can easily connect to town transit buses and other regional bus and train services. The extra time it takes the train to do this would not matter, because if you were in a hurry to get from Sydney to Melbourne, you would catch the express service anyway and it would be a time advantage for those going to the regional centers.

I noticed in the proposals, that it said they would build regional stations out of town to save cost and reduce the impact on communities. I don't know about you, but I think that's not the best way of doing it.

That's how the French do it. Unless the rail line is billiard table straight through the town, the branch wont happen.

It'll blow out the time it takes to run a service (Just see how narky people get on RFR trains with the fact that they have to stop at several stations that half the time that they realistically don't need to. The express/long distance trains are very well patronised). The French run buses to the town center etc etc from the LGV station.

Hell in every country they build HSR they dont even put the stations on the main running lines either.

I noticed in the proposals, that it said they would build regional stations out of town to save cost and reduce the impact on communities. I don't know about you, but I think that's not the best way of doing it. I think they should have a branch line into the regional centers and as it approaches town, it slows down to a lower speed to reduce the impact on that community and could even use the existing line though town if traffic volumes allowed it. Train pulls up at existing train station and people can easily connect to town transit buses and other regional bus and train services. The extra time it takes the train to do this would not matter, because if you were in a hurry to get from Sydney to Melbourne, you would catch the express service anyway and it would be a time advantage for those going to the regional centers.

In most cases it would be easier, cheaper and less disruptive to extend the regional bus services out to the out-of-town station, rather than bring the regional station into town.  Regional airports are rarely located in the centre of town, but people still happily use them.

I noticed in the proposals, that it said they would build regional stations out of town to save cost and reduce the impact on communities. I don't know about you, but I think that's not the best way of doing it. I think they should have a branch line into the regional centers and as it approaches town, it slows down to a lower speed to reduce the impact on that community and could even use the existing line though town if traffic volumes allowed it. Train pulls up at existing train station and people can easily connect to town transit buses and other regional bus and train services. The extra time it takes the train to do this would not matter, because if you were in a hurry to get from Sydney to Melbourne, you would catch the express service anyway and it would be a time advantage for those going to the regional centers.

Could you imagine the cost to do this and the massive cost in time at each station? Each junction would probably need to be a fly over, two per town. Also the time impact, not an issue if going S-M, but what if you are headed to a station prior to Mel from Syd?

QR has been pulling out of in-town stations for a number of years for good reason and would cut Bundy and Rocky if the govt would fund by-passes. Personally I'd move Gladstone station to the Moura Short line and probably cut 5-10min. For a HSR service you would probably add 15min per station as a min to the already 5-10min you loose to stop at a station.

Reality is the number of proposed stations between S-M is about 4 (open to correction), every 150-200km or so. So even if it was in town, 99% of people will be driven to/from station anyway.

Very Fast Turnover
http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/utopia/CO1211V003S00

Does anyone actually expect a regional airport to be located in a town ?

Most regional airports around the country and certainly on the east coast do not have route bus connections to the closest town.

Albury does not. Nor does Dubbo.

What of Armidale ?