High speed rail consortium to seek green light from Malcolm Turnbull

 

News article: High speed rail consortium to seek green light from Malcolm Turnbull

Malcolm Turnbull will be asked to consider giving the green light to developers who want to forge ahead with a project for high-speed rail on Australia’s east coast.

  simstrain Chief Commissioner

It doesn't need to compete; it needs to have a distinct advantage to make it viable. There's no point in something that isn't an improvement.
Rail has a huge advantage. Given (even somewhat) similar travel times, most people choose to stay on the ground. People fly only for the convenience.
Another thing that people like about rail is the immediacy of travel - arrive at station, get on train, train goes - simples!
Lockspike

The immediacy of travel maybe the case for suburban rail but for vft trains it requires the same booking process as aircraft. I would still have to leave an hour early to get a vft train as I would to get to Sydney or Western Sydney airport (when operational), especially at Central and southern cross stations.

Sponsored advertisement

  Bethungra Train Controller

Just get on and build the damn thing and create jobs in regional Australia and place the airlines under competition.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Rail has a huge advantage. Given (even somewhat) similar travel times, most people choose to stay on the ground.
Lockspike"
Just show me one example in Australia of a journey where rail and air take up similar travel times. Then tell me how you know that "most people choose to stay on the ground."
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Just get on and build the damn thing and create jobs in regional Australia and place the airlines under competition.
Bethungra
1. Are you financing it?
2. What jobs in regional Australia?
3. Four domestic airlines fly the Melbourne-Sydney corridor - this isn't competition?
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
It doesn't need to compete; it needs to have a distinct advantage to make it viable. There's no point in something that isn't an improvement.
Rail has a huge advantage. Given (even somewhat) similar travel times, most people choose to stay on the ground. People fly only for the convenience.
Another thing that people like about rail is the immediacy of travel - arrive at station, get on train, train goes - simples!

The immediacy of travel maybe the case for suburban rail but for vft trains it requires the same booking process as aircraft. I would still have to leave an hour early to get a vft train as I would to get to Sydney or Western Sydney airport (when operational), especially at Central and southern cross stations.
simstrain
Generally on European VFTs there is no need for the hour early thing. Turn up at the station with 15 minutes to spare and you are generally making the train. I do it all the time. Only time this is different is where passport control is required.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
It doesn't need to compete; it needs to have a distinct advantage to make it viable. There's no point in something that isn't an improvement.
Rail has a huge advantage. Given (even somewhat) similar travel times, most people choose to stay on the ground. People fly only for the convenience.
Another thing that people like about rail is the immediacy of travel - arrive at station, get on train, train goes - simples!

The immediacy of travel maybe the case for suburban rail but for vft trains it requires the same booking process as aircraft. I would still have to leave an hour early to get a vft train as I would to get to Sydney or Western Sydney airport (when operational), especially at Central and southern cross stations.
Generally on European VFTs there is no need for the hour early thing. Turn up at the station with 15 minutes to spare and you are generally making the train. I do it all the time. Only time this is different is where passport control is required.
arctic
The busiest air routes in EU are also serviced by HSR. I can urn up 15-20min before my plane leaves as well unless passport control and especially if no baggage and checked in online. Straight to gate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_routes#Busiest_air_routes_inside_the_EU.2C_Switzerland.2C_Iceland_and_Norway_.2A

Security for HSR will elevate to similar to plane because a bomb going off at +300km/hr in the front of the train I'm sure will have a very similar outcome to a bomb going off at 30,000ft, you may get a few more survivors, but it won't be like the whole train if the front cars are derailed.

Once on a plane, people will tend to stay on a plane.

I can book my plane fare on my phone in 60sec.
Recently I also booked numerous trips on OBB via app on my phone in same time.
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

Generally on European VFTs there is no need for the hour early thing.
arctic
Yes there is, if you're a real world passenger rather than a straw man who only travels from CBD to CBD.

Real world passengers need time for the transfer getting them to the station where their high speed train departs, and from the arrival station to their destination. This is factored into the total journey time, just like transfers to and from airports. Time from station to station is just as arbitrary as airport to airport (because Tullamarine is much more convenient for many people than the Melbourne CBD) and therefore it is not appropriate to pretend transfer time doesn't exist for rail.

This is where the model of the German ICE routes needs to be considered, rather than the French TGV routes. ICE trains typically stop at another couple of stations in a large metro area as well as the Hauptbahnhof, which adds a small time penalty for passengers using the Hauptbahnhof (or staying on the train as it stops at 2-3 stations in urban area) but greatly increases the number of people who can use the train without battling their way in/out of city centres on the crowded S-Bahn and U-Bahn systems.

The Brits will be going with the ICE model for how HS2 serves the major cities, with 'outer' stations at Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange and Manchester Airport.
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
Reluctantly,

This is now getting mixed up between the time needed to get to the airport and the time recommended to be at the airport. Two different things. The one hour I was referring is the latter.

15 mins from airport entry to the published DEPARTURE time of a flight is generally impossible, since the gate closes well before. Even at the best airports.

For a train the departure time is the last moment you can get on.

Fifty + times I travelled from Zurich Airport last year, one of the best in the world. I would never ever chance 20mins though, even at 5 in the morning.
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
Generally on European VFTs there is no need for the hour early thing.
Yes there is, if you're a real world passenger rather than a straw man who only travels from CBD to CBD.

Real world passengers need time for the transfer getting them to the station where their high speed train departs, and from the arrival station to their destination. This is factored into the total journey time, just like transfers to and from airports. Time from station to station is just as arbitrary as airport to airport (because Tullamarine is much more convenient for many people than the Melbourne CBD) and therefore it is not appropriate to pretend transfer time doesn't exist for rail.

This is where the model of the German ICE routes needs to be considered, rather than the French TGV routes. ICE trains typically stop at another couple of stations in a large metro area as well as the Hauptbahnhof, which adds a small time penalty for passengers using the Hauptbahnhof (or staying on the train as it stops at 2-3 stations in urban area) but greatly increases the number of people who can use the train without battling their way in/out of city centres on the crowded S-Bahn and U-Bahn systems.

The Brits will be going with the ICE model for how HS2 serves the major cities, with 'outer' stations at Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange and Manchester Airport.
justapassenger
sorry I was referring to the time needed at the airpert/station ahead of the published departure time, not the transit time to the airport or station.

Lots of strawmen in Europe....
  woodford Chief Commissioner

A major reason why one needs to be at the airport well ahead of time, is the aircraft MUST be balanced and baggage needs to be weighed and stored correctly in the cargo holds and if its likely a passenger will for some reason not board and any luggage they put on MUST be removed. All this takes time, and they REALLY REALLY REALLY like the aircraft to depart on time, this is why people who are late are NOT liked

As trains usually do not have balance problems rail does not suffer from this issue.

woodford
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
1. Are you financing it?
2. What jobs in regional Australia?
3. Four domestic airlines fly the Melbourne-Sydney corridor - this isn't competition?
Valvegear

Australian's won't finance this it will be the Japanese or the Chinese. Having just returned from my annual trip to Asia I cannot wait now for the Bangkok-KL-Singapore HST to get up and running.  Sick of waiting at airports for delays and the crush and having to travel long distances from the centre of the city to the airport.  Bring it on and replace an incredibly inefficient system.

By way of update, the rail line to the new BKK airport is constructed well and offers a good service but still a long way out at 50kms.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Australian's won't finance this it will be the Japanese or the Chinese.
"bevans"
If we can't afford it, don't build it.
We're talking about a total of nine million people in the two cities, and how many of them travel the Sydney-Melbourne corridor annually? How many of those go for business, and how many for pleasure?
Will rail give a much better deal than air? If yes; how much better?
How many passengers will you seat on one train?  How many trains a day? What frequency? How many classes? What sort of on-train service?
I have used trains in Europe because I am a tourist. I could have flown Berlin to Stuttgart in a lot less time than the train took, but I wanted to see the country.  I wonder how many would have the same reason to use any HSR link. I am also biased because I am a lover of trains and have been part of this very-much-minority group all my life.
For the life of me, I cannot see a totally new enterprise, costing squillions for infrastructure and equipment, competing with the airlines, whilst charging lower fares, as it will have to do in order to win passengers over.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Australian's won't finance this it will be the Japanese or the Chinese.
If we can't afford it, don't build it.
We're talking about a total of nine million people in the two cities, and how many of them travel the Sydney-Melbourne corridor annually? How many of those go for business, and how many for pleasure?
Will rail give a much better deal than air? If yes; how much better?
How many passengers will you seat on one train?  How many trains a day? What frequency? How many classes? What sort of on-train service?
I have used trains in Europe because I am a tourist. I could have flown Berlin to Stuttgart in a lot less time than the train took, but I wanted to see the country.  I wonder how many would have the same reason to use any HSR link. I am also biased because I am a lover of trains and have been part of this very-much-minority group all my life.
For the life of me, I cannot see a totally new enterprise, costing squillions for infrastructure and equipment, competing with the airlines, whilst charging lower fares, as it will have to do in order to win passengers over.
Valvegear

Annually about 8 million a year between the airlines and the XPT. This equates to only 21,000 people a day and that is your 4th busiest air route in the world. Passenger numbers between Sydney and Melbourne have also fallen since 2011. Australia is not Europe, Japan and especially not China. We are a food and resource bowl and our railway system should support these industries and not on a wasteful passenger service that no one will be able to afford.

If people want to solve the housing issue then reverse the decision on foreign residential housing and that will solve part of the problem. Getting rid of stamp duty might also help. But that will not make the politicians money and therefore will never happen. If Clara built these new cities then how much do you think housing will be? Do you think greedy developers will provide cheap housing for low income families to exist in these new cities? To make money out of these new cities the pricing will have to be exorbitant.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
Rail has a huge advantage. Given (even somewhat) similar travel times, most people choose to stay on the ground.
Just show me one example in Australia of a journey where rail and air take up similar travel times. Then tell me how you know that "most people choose to stay on the ground."
Valvegear

Why would Australia be any different to Europe where before the Channel Tunnel most people flew between London and Paris/Brussels etc. Nowadays the Eurostar has taken many pax away from the airlines and as the old proverb goes...'the rest is history'.

In today's world where airlines are seen as a necessarily evil way of travelling ...especially the busy MEL - SYD corridor...most intending pax will support rail if times are competitive, the convenience which is already a given, fares are competitive...and what's been overlooked so far is the clean energy alternative with little if any air pollution derived by the planned HSR...whatever form than ultimately takes.

Mike.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Rail has a huge advantage. Given (even somewhat) similar travel times, most people choose to stay on the ground.
Just show me one example in Australia of a journey where rail and air take up similar travel times. Then tell me how you know that "most people choose to stay on the ground."

Why would Australia be any different to Europe where before the Channel Tunnel most people flew between London and Paris/Brussels etc. Nowadays the Eurostar has taken many pax away from the airlines and as the old proverb goes...'the rest is history'.

In today's world where airlines are seen as a necessarily evil way of travelling ...especially the busy MEL - SYD corridor...most intending pax will support rail if times are competitive, the convenience which is already a given, fares are competitive...and what's been overlooked so far is the clean energy alternative with little if any air pollution derived by the planned HSR...whatever form than ultimately takes.

Mike.
The Vinelander
Mike you have over glorified Eurostar

What happened to PAris-Brussels is unlikely to be repeated in Australia with the exception of Syd - Can. Europeans are more rail focused than the average Aussie and even a HSR from B - M willl not change that a great deal because HSR capital to capital is marginal, in EU it has advantages in time. Also it gets people where they want to go because it has penetration.

Austrian trains don't go over 200km/hr, but on Vienna to Salzburg (300km) then is a nice train every 30min for the 3.5 to 4hr journey. The line is progressively being upgraded and expanded further west to Salzburg but the main part to Linz is 4 tracks, passenger, express, commuter and freight all sharing the same tracks. Note if the Austrians cannot simply throws piles of money at their railway to build HSR or even MSR for their entire small country, WTF are we looking at doing for HSR?

I read a recent report which stated that the Chunnel Project after 20 years has not benefited the UK economy by $1. Its freight forecasts are a failure and I believe now completely stopped apart from motor rail services. Its passenger numbers have also been grossly over estimated and would have required the ferry services to be completely closed to achieve.

The fare comparison is the critical, you want people to use it, it has to compete with air financially, but the projected fares by the HSR review committee make no sense what so ever and would not generate a positive cash flow. So you have to subsidise the thing to make it look good and compete.

People will typically remain on the same mode of transport especially as the operators will give favorable through fares, hence why the busiest EU air corridors also have HSR competition, but HS has failed to kill those corridors because its marginal against air.

Interesting report on pollution of HSR vs air. The amount of energy required by a HSR at 350km/hr is huge and argued that is powered by coal fired produces more CO2 than equivalent plane. To achieve Mike's outcome you also have to build renewable energy supply for the train, one that is 24/7/365 and doesn't get blocked NIMBY's (Greenies block more renewable power generation than others) as there is no excess renewable power generation capacity in Australia.

At the end of the day Mike, there is so much more could do with the HSR money to improve Commuter rail why are we willing to pi$$ it up against the wall on a limited service line few would actually use and have minimal impact on their daily lives.

As my business improvement manager would say, "What is the problem you are trying to solve and how will your solution provide a business effective solution to that problem?"

Unfortunately for the bulk of pro HSR crowd, its build it at all costs, to hell with the expense, practicality or justification.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Why would Australia be any different to Europe where before the Channel Tunnel most people flew between London and Paris/Brussels etc. Nowadays the Eurostar has taken many pax away from the airlines and as the old proverb goes...'the rest is history'.
"The Vinelander"
For starters there's a small item called population density which is where Australia and Europe are poles apart.  Don't get too carried away about the Eurostar. I've used it twice from Paris to London because of the novelty. The procedure and cramped waiting area at Gare du Nord are an absolute pain in the backside, and it was certainly nowhere near capacity on either occasion.

In today's world where airlines are seen as a necessarily evil way of travelling
"The Vinelander"
By whom? I enjoy flying; so do many other people I know.

and what's been overlooked so far is the clean energy alternative with little if any air pollution derived by the planned HSR...whatever form than ultimately takes.
"The Vinelander"
RTT_Rules has beaten me to the punch here, so I'll content myself by endorsing his remarks.
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
As my business improvement manager would say, "What is the problem you are trying to solve and how will your solution provide a business effective solution to that problem?"

Unfortunately for the bulk of pro HSR crowd, its build it at all costs, to hell with the expense, practicality or justification.
RTT_Rules


This, this here is the HSR debate in a nutshell.

It is a huge request for a pile of cash from people who want it, dressed up as a solution to a problem it will do little to solve (two of which are urban congestion and residential housing affordability), when there are other solutions that are far far less costly and more effective.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Top 10 EU busiest air corridors

1. Toulouse to Paris, 680km (2.3m, numbers are 2014 unless stated)
2. Mardrid to Barcelono, 620km (2.3m, dropped from 3.1m 2011 assume to be because of introduction of HSR)
3. Nice to Paris, 930km (2.0m) We will do this in June this year.
4. Oslo to Trondheim, 500km, (1.9m)
5. Catania to Rome, 800km (1.8m)
6. Berlin to Munich, 600km (1.8m)
7. Oslo to Bergen, 462km (1.7m)
8. Frankfurt to Berlin, 550km ( 1.7m)
9. Munich to Hamburg, 775km, (1.6m)
10. London to Dublin, over water so it doesn't count.

Many of the above routes have HSR and all have MSR. However when you look at the average speeds for many of the HSR services, the average speed from end to end including Paris to Marseillie (775km in just over 3hr or 225km/hr) is far lower than required for Syd to Mel to be competitive with air.

Madrid to Barcelona is probably one of the higher average speeds at 2:30hr for 620km, but still only 250km/hr. Note southern Spain is mostly desert with few obstacles.

Overall most of EU's +300km/hr services operate on relative flat terrain, like Northern Vic, not like the NSW coast which is one continuously long mountain range for 1500km and the reason why the current route is so bad compared to Vic, especially the 200km surrouding Sydney.

Basically a +300km/hr for Sydney to Melbourne service is not comparable to EU and you should not expect the same outcome.

I've caught HSR from Paris to Geneva (3hr), first 90min was great and fast, last 90min I felt like I was on the XPT headed up the NSW NCL

If you are flying domestically with no luggage and checked in on line, its direct to security and the gate check in. I can tell you before self check in's. (My dad when he was working would never arrive at an Australian airport more than 30min prior to the departure time. No queues as they always call through flights that are close to boarding so why line up. Arrive 30min before, called to front counter, then you get express security check straight to gate as most pax are already on the plane, remove the other persons O/H luggage from your spot above your seat and sit down.)
.....

The location of the airport is irrelevant, so what if BKK is 50km out, the train trip takes as long as driving to Tullamarine, time is the critical factor and yes if HSR was built there would be stops at Tulla, SW Sydney etc. there would unlikely be only CBD to CBD as I highly doubt we have the critical mass for too many different types of services.
......

Its also interesting to note that the majority of countries with HSR are also HSR technology providers and their respective networks are more political driven than practical. Penetration to non HSR technology providing countries is very rare and often then is a political background. Taiwan is probably the exception.

......
Paris to Brussels is 320km (1:20hr by HSR or average speed of 240km/hr), 50km more than Syd to Canberra. MSR would have also been very successful only adding 10-15min to the trip for probably alot less capital.

MSR Syd to Can is a must, for numerous reasons and some of it purely political as why is the Nations Capital so badly connected by PT to Sydney, the main gateway to Australia only 270km away?
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
How about some references for all this RTT? In particular the claim on CO2 intensity? Does not really line up - Hopefully not from a right wing "think tank" in the US....

As for the strategy for queue jumping at airports by intentionally being late, aside from the fact its a little bit impolite, are you suggesting we all do that? Result would be delays for everyone. Claiming then this is the same as being able (for everyone) to be comfortably arrive at a train station and be able to get on board 15mins ahead of an HSR departure is also not adding up.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
Rail has a huge advantage. Given (even somewhat) similar travel times, most people choose to stay on the ground.
Just show me one example in Australia of a journey where rail and air take up similar travel times. Then tell me how you know that "most people choose to stay on the ground."

Why would Australia be any different to Europe where before the Channel Tunnel most people flew between London and Paris/Brussels etc. Nowadays the Eurostar has taken many pax away from the airlines and as the old proverb goes...'the rest is history'.

In today's world where airlines are seen as a necessarily evil way of travelling ...especially the busy MEL - SYD corridor...most intending pax will support rail if times are competitive, the convenience which is already a given, fares are competitive...and what's been overlooked so far is the clean energy alternative with little if any air pollution derived by the planned HSR...whatever form than ultimately takes.

Mike.
Mike you have over glorified Eurostar

What happened to PAris-Brussels is unlikely to be repeated in Australia with the exception of Syd - Can. Europeans are more rail focused than the average Aussie and even a HSR from B - M will not change that a great deal because HSR capital to capital is marginal, in EU it has advantages in time. Also it gets people where they want to go because it has penetration.


At the end of the day Mike, there is so much more could do with the HSR money to improve Commuter rail why are we willing to pi$$ it up against the wall on a limited service line few would actually use and have minimal impact on their daily lives.

As my business improvement manager would say, "What is the problem you are trying to solve and how will your solution provide a business effective solution to that problem?"

Unfortunately for the bulk of pro HSR crowd, its build it at all costs, to hell with the expense, practicality or justification.
RTT_Rules


I'll refer those that are interested to the article below in italics that gave rise to this thread...

Malcolm Turnbull will be asked to consider giving the green light to developers who want to forge ahead with a project for high-speed rail on Australia’s east coast.

The government is not being asked to subsidise the infrastructure, consequently if there are none of our taxpayer $$ going towards the project, what is the problem Question If the project falls over...it falls over.

I refer to airlines as a necessary evil as fundamentally they are a dirty means of travel and are doing damage to the upper atmosphere....but it's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about.

Mike.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Except Clara will be wanting tax benefits and governments will need to pay for the other infrastructure for the cities that this consortium wants to build. So while the railway will not need tax payer money. The cities being created will need tax payer money.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Oh and maybe I could also point to the ghost cities in Spain and China as to why this idea of creating artificial cities doesn't work.
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
Rail has a huge advantage. Given (even somewhat) similar travel times, most people choose to stay on the ground.
Just show me one example in Australia of a journey where rail and air take up similar travel times. Then tell me how you know that "most people choose to stay on the ground."

Why would Australia be any different to Europe where before the Channel Tunnel most people flew between London and Paris/Brussels etc. Nowadays the Eurostar has taken many pax away from the airlines and as the old proverb goes...'the rest is history'.

In today's world where airlines are seen as a necessarily evil way of travelling ...especially the busy MEL - SYD corridor...most intending pax will support rail if times are competitive, the convenience which is already a given, fares are competitive...and what's been overlooked so far is the clean energy alternative with little if any air pollution derived by the planned HSR...whatever form than ultimately takes.

Mike.
Mike you have over glorified Eurostar

What happened to PAris-Brussels is unlikely to be repeated in Australia with the exception of Syd - Can. Europeans are more rail focused than the average Aussie and even a HSR from B - M will not change that a great deal because HSR capital to capital is marginal, in EU it has advantages in time. Also it gets people where they want to go because it has penetration.


At the end of the day Mike, there is so much more could do with the HSR money to improve Commuter rail why are we willing to pi$$ it up against the wall on a limited service line few would actually use and have minimal impact on their daily lives.

As my business improvement manager would say, "What is the problem you are trying to solve and how will your solution provide a business effective solution to that problem?"

Unfortunately for the bulk of pro HSR crowd, its build it at all costs, to hell with the expense, practicality or justification.


I'll refer those that are interested to the article below in italics that gave rise to this thread...

Malcolm Turnbull will be asked to consider giving the green light to developers who want to forge ahead with a project for high-speed rail on Australia’s east coast.

The government is not being asked to subsidise the infrastructure, consequently if there are none of our taxpayer $$ going towards the project, what is the problem Question If the project falls over...it falls over.

I refer to airlines as a necessary evil as fundamentally they are a dirty means of travel and are doing damage to the upper atmosphere....but it's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about.

Mike.
The Vinelander

You cannot claim that this project won't incur additional costs to government somewhere along the line.

As I asked in my response to the OP - who pays for the development of the infrastructure for these new cities?

Or is CLARA seriously going to pay for this?

We need more details.  Like a decent business case....
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Oh and maybe I could also point to the ghost cities in Spain and China as to why this idea of creating artificial cities doesn't work.
simstrain
In Dubai all developments including infrastructure must be 100% funded by teh developer and the development as a whole is managed by the developer long term including security, vegetation, parks, pools and sewerage, road maintenance etc etc Its run as a business not social welfare like Australia. Hence the cost of a 2 bedroom villa (mine) of 1800sqrfeet, tiny backyard is A$800,000 and costs $50,000 a year to rent and this is 30km from the airport and 20km from CBD.

So they are going to sell this to people +300km from the state capital's along with a 90-120min commute?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE


I'll refer those that are interested to the article below in italics that gave rise to this thread...

Malcolm Turnbull will be asked to consider giving the green light to developers who want to forge ahead with a project for high-speed rail on Australia’s east coast.

The government is not being asked to subsidise the infrastructure, consequently if there are none of our taxpayer $$ going towards the project, what is the problem Question If the project falls over...it falls over.

I refer to airlines as a necessary evil as fundamentally they are a dirty means of travel and are doing damage to the upper atmosphere....but it's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about.

Mike.
The Vinelander
Mike,
Many here have stated if you don't need taxpayer assistance, go for it!

Now considering the poor success rate of privately funded infrastructure projects in Australia and hence why it all pretty much stopped after the financial flops of the Airport trains and numerous inner city road tunnels. Do you really believe this marginal against air HSR which needs to one of the longest HSR lines in the world and will need to have the worlds highest average speed operating within 90% of the max speed for the entire trip of 800km will be a financial success?

Would you invest in it?

In regional Australia the stations won't even be in the towns, think Gympie North, Marybough West, New Townsville as best case example.

The airlines are a fact of life. 500,000 people are on a plane any one time, its one of the fastest growing industries for over 20 years and out stepping world population growth.

HSR itself has its own long list of pollution issues. it will require a 800km long deforested strip of land around 40-50m wide, huge energy requirement as well a basically a barrier along its corridor.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.