High speed rail: back on track?

You must be logged in to reply

  Search thread   Image gallery
« 1 2 3 ... 15 16 of 20 17 18 19 20 »
MD Chief Commissioner

Location: Canbera

You cant compare Australia with Spain, as Spain has far lower wages, and labor costs
are a significant part of building large infrastructure projects.
Spain is now close to bankrupt , and will need bailing out just like Greece.
Thats what happens when you spend billions of $ you dont have.

 
BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney

Yes like the hundred million a day Red Leads borrowing to help destroy the joint .  

 
cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: Waiting for the sky to fall, the seas to rise... and to see a train on the SSFL!

Yes like the hundred million a day Red Leads borrowing to help destroy the joint .  

- BDA



Yep we are just like Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain - APIG Shocked

Mind you if as a nation we got a better return off our resources the guvmnt wouldn't need to.

Regardless no one's going to build it as soon all the $$$ will all be going into aged care and pensions Wink

 
johnboy Chief Commissioner

Location: Up the road from Gulgong

Mr RTT, have to pick up on two points:

1) the cost: everyone seems to use the 100bn for the Brisbane - Sydney -Melbourne number when the quoted range in the report is 61-108bn for 1600km (ref1). The Spanish built their >2000km network for 60 odd, including lots of tunnels and bridges.
2) CO2 emissions: for a network powered by fossil fired electricty would be less CO2 emissions than an aircraft and would be coming down further as the power generation mix changes in Oz towards Gas Combined Cycle and renewables (ref 2).

cheers


ref 1 http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/releases/2011/August/AA140_2011.aspx
ref 2: rough numbers from http://www.greengauge21.net/publications/energy-consumption-and-co2-impacts-of-high-speed-rail/ :A321 over 800km emits 15t CO2. A 500 pax VFT powered by electricty from coal fired plant emits 16t/CO2 at a power station energy intensity of 0.9tCO2/MWh. Levelised on a per seat basis the A321 is 4 x worse than the VFT. The Australian CO2 intensity data is from publicly avilable information and relates to current coal station performance before any effect of a carbon price is accounted for.

- arctic


1) Australia will never build anything cheap as the Spainish.... That's why the Spanish are building our newest war ship because we cant even come close.

2) The CO2 emissions paper you present is from what a number of scientist have already wiped as being bias. Greengauge 21 and their directors are heavily involved in rail transport in the UK and would naturally all their evidence is against anything but rail, especially HSR.

If you read any number of other papers from Uni and New Scientist magazine, to establish a new HSR to 1000km plus, that need to run off coal-powered fire stations, the construction phase and first year of HSR operation will use use 30 years of carbon produced by planes on the same route.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17260-train-can-be-worse-for-climate-than-plane.html

... HOWEVER in saying all that the running of an established train, even from a coal burning power station, is apparently a lot less... once established!

 
arctic Assistant Commissioner

Location: Zurich

Mr RTT, have to pick up on two points:

1) the cost: everyone seems to use the 100bn for the Brisbane - Sydney -Melbourne number when the quoted range in the report is 61-108bn for 1600km (ref1). The Spanish built their >2000km network for 60 odd, including lots of tunnels and bridges.
2) CO2 emissions: for a network powered by fossil fired electricty would be less CO2 emissions than an aircraft and would be coming down further as the power generation mix changes in Oz towards Gas Combined Cycle and renewables (ref 2).

cheers


ref 1 http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/releases/2011/August/AA140_2011.aspx
ref 2: rough numbers from http://www.greengauge21.net/publications/energy-consumption-and-co2-impacts-of-high-speed-rail/ :A321 over 800km emits 15t CO2. A 500 pax VFT powered by electricty from coal fired plant emits 16t/CO2 at a power station energy intensity of 0.9tCO2/MWh. Levelised on a per seat basis the A321 is 4 x worse than the VFT. The Australian CO2 intensity data is from publicly avilable information and relates to current coal station performance before any effect of a carbon price is accounted for.

- arctic


1) Australia will never build anything cheap as the Spainish.... That's why the Spanish are building our newest war ship because we cant even come close.

2) The CO2 emissions paper you present is from what a number of scientist have already wiped as being bias. Greengauge 21 and their directors are heavily involved in rail transport in the UK and would naturally all their evidence is against anything but rail, especially HSR.

If you read any number of other papers from Uni and New Scientist magazine, to establish a new HSR to 1000km plus, that need to run off coal-powered fire stations, the construction phase and first year of HSR operation will use use 30 years of carbon produced by planes on the same route.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17260-train-can-be-worse-for-climate-than-plane.html

... HOWEVER in saying all that the running of an established train, even from a coal burning power station, is apparently a lot less... once established!

- johnboy



1) Unfortunately my point got a bit confused here due to the reference to Spain.  My main point was:

The AUSTRALIAN report for a east coast VFT from Mel-Brisbane was quoted in the range of 61-108bn. Its just as viable, at this time, to take the low figure as the high one. Some posters apparently beleive its 100bn for Sydney - Melboune or even Sydney - Canberra.

2) The article you reference is based on a paper which should be read. It was not even about HSR. Oddly it attempted to compare Light Rail (amongst other things) with aircraft (!) and does not get its facts right on the power generation side. A lot of readily apparent holes in the logic proves any graduate or undergraduate can get published writing BS. 

I accept that greengauge 21 might have vested interests but I did a rough calc and the numbers do stack up. In any case the numbers I used for CO2 intensity of a coal fired power plant were conservative and can only improve.

Which scientists have disputed directly the greengauge claims?

I should never have referred to the Spanish experience. Any comparison with overseas is always going to have a fatal difference raised. An argument for an HSR in Oz can only stand on its own merits of course. I will point out they built a lot more HSR for 60bn than we are proposing to (never) build for more money. It is therefore logical that the Australian Study accounts for the differences in labor costs.

cheers

 
arctic Assistant Commissioner

Location: Zurich

You cant compare Australia with Spain, as Spain has far lower wages, and labor costs
are a significant part of building large infrastructure projects.
Spain is now close to bankrupt , and will need bailing out just like Greece.
Thats what happens when you spend billions of $ you dont have.

- MD



There have been a number of implied comments here that somehow the evils of HSR is what has driven the European Financial Crisis. If that were so, Greece would be covered by HSRs. It does not have even one. I could just as easily say (I'm not) that Greece has a financial crisis because they lack the economic benefits of HSR.

As for Spain - the HSR network they have cost 60bn and have a total debt of >2000bn.

Thats 3%.

The real question for Spain that has not been answered: Are they better off with one or without one?

cheers

 
RTT_Rules Minister for Railways

Location: Dubai UAE

You cant compare Australia with Spain, as Spain has far lower wages, and labor costs
are a significant part of building large infrastructure projects.
Spain is now close to bankrupt , and will need bailing out just like Greece.
Thats what happens when you spend billions of $ you dont have.

- MD



There have been a number of implied comments here that somehow the evils of HSR is what has driven the European Financial Crisis. If that were so, Greece would be covered by HSRs. It does not have even one. I could just as easily say (I'm not) that Greece has a financial crisis because they lack the economic benefits of HSR.

As for Spain - the HSR network they have cost 60bn and have a total debt of >2000bn.

Thats 3%.

The real question for Spain that has not been answered: Are they better off with one or without one?

cheers

- arctic

$60B?, unlikely in 2012 dollars. Do you have a reference?

Answer your question, would they be better off without it? Probably considering they have 25% unemployment. Unlikely their HSR is cash flow positive.

The 3% is just part of the big picture of over spending. Its a railway they really didn't have the cash to build in first place, along with other stuff and the will have a generation of unemployment to pay for it. Maybe there are other things that should have been dropped first? Imagine finishing school and being told half the people in the class room will be unemployed and a job at Macca's is considered aspirational. I'm sure they would love to have 3% less debt right now.

Forget HSR in Australia, it doesn't add up. We don't have the population density, the close proximty, the justification, or the money. Even if its $100B Mel to Bris, it will always rank 2nd to airlines as the times are too slow. interest payments will still exceed $200/ticket. Spain has also been able to establish a HSR culture because with Madrid in centre of country and most of rest within 700km radiating out to most major centres, its becoming a natural choice. Australia is unlikely to get past Syd-Mel for a log long time and then its Brisbane after that, zip and it won't compete on Bris-Mel traffic. So only a fraction of potential air routes covered.

CO2 argument. I need to find but I have read articles that said HSR can be similar in CO2/person/km to modern planes. Yes there are options to reduce CO2 emitted per MW. Airlines are also progressively bringing down their emissions.

 
donttellmywife Deputy Commissioner

Location: Antofagasta



1) Unfortunately my point got a bit confused here due to the reference to Spain.  My main point was:

The AUSTRALIAN report for a east coast VFT from Mel-Brisbane was quoted in the range of 61-108bn. Its just as viable, at this time, to take the low figure as the high one. Some posters apparently beleive its 100bn for Sydney - Melboune or even Sydney - Canberra.


- arctic



(RTT_Rules - the most recent study quoted figures in 2011 dollars.)

The 61 versus 108 billion figures differ in the likelihood of that being the actual cost outcome.  The simple summation is a little simplisitic (as the probability of the overall summed outcome is not the same as the probability associated with achieving the segment outcome), but there is a big difference in risk between a 90% probability that you'll need to go back and ask for more cash, or a 10% probability.


2) The article you reference is based on a paper which should be read. It was not even about HSR. Oddly it attempted to compare Light Rail (amongst other things) with aircraft (!) and does not get its facts right on the power generation side. A lot of readily apparent holes in the logic proves any graduate or undergraduate can get published writing BS. 

I accept that greengauge 21 might have vested interests but I did a rough calc and the numbers do stack up. In any case the numbers I used for CO2 intensity of a coal fired power plant were conservative and can only improve.
- A user



Without assessing the detail note there's a difference in approach between the two papers.  One deals with the life-cycle, the other only with the operational phase (and more around forward projections of the operational phase). 

A comparison of life cycle energy costs between light rail and aviation is rather bizarre given they operate in completely different segments.

The greengauge document doesn't consider the construction phase of a high speed system.  Energy use in that phase is significant - that's the archilles heel of the "greenouse reduction" argument for high speed rail when deciding whether to build a new system or not.

The relevant comparison would be the life-cycle energy use of high speed rail versus aviation in an Australian context.  I've no idea how that would turn out.  Life cycle costing is notoriously subjective, so I suspect you could create arguments either way.

Anyway greenhouse gas emissions isn't going to swing the argument for a high speed rail system on its own - there are far more effective ways of spending $60 billion (or $80 billion, or $100 billion) if that's your aim; plus none of the transport systems beat the "don't travel at all" option. 

It's probably more meaningful and transparent to pick a dollar per tonne of CO2 figure, and then just see if the economics stack up.

I agree that European national debt comparisons are misleading.  Let the project stand on its merits.

 
RTT_Rules Minister for Railways

Location: Dubai UAE

The $61B vs $108B is a 30% +/- figure. Typical how you est a project early on and working in heavy industry, they usually go up more than down. And based on past experience with govt projects, they nearly all go up and up alot further than down. Fact is number is so high either way is not affordable.

1.5m per month for the Mel-Can-Syd-GC-Bris corriodore, half is 0.75m/mth or 9mpa, ok lets go the full 10mpa.

$61B (lower end) requires $3B in interest annual payments = $300/ticket.

Ok somehow you manage to get alot more regional driving so make it 20mpa, still $150/ticket on average to cover the price of interest payments. Or if you want it interest free,capital repayment based on 50 years operation. How is this viable????

And after you have blown that money, you still have around Australia (apart from 50% of Qld NCL), freight trains running along 19th century track forcing around 3 x as much traffic that potentially could go via rail onto roads. Yet realistically the HSR has done bugger all to reduce passenger use of roads as even 10mpa off the Mel-Bris corridore is a drop in ocean. Rail freights share on the same corridore is so low that you can practically say with right in vestment you could reduce by 1/3.

The CO2 credentials don't wash as an excuse to spend all this money, the one govt that introduced a CO2 tax doesn't care. You don't see them rushing out saying look $2B spent on Syd-Mel rail corridore will reduce CO2 by x amount by getting rid of 19th century alignments or really attacking the S-Bris corridore. They know the major leap forward for intercapital freight volumes on eastern corridore is O/N delivery capable and avoiding Syd curfew. Just like they don't care about the 500mtpa of CO2 from coal that will soon be headed OS. Too busy making domestic power users pay more, generating more general revenuse from the CO2 tax and creating social welfare under a CO2 tax and sending big industry OS.

Spend that $61B on freight corridores and commuter rail improvements and you will save alot more CO2 tax than HSR ever will as the paradaigm shift from road to rail (for both freight and commuter rail) in CO2 reduction is far more and a much larger market than air to HSR rail. You will also do far more to the country as a whole than just one corridore for which you need to demolish a path 100m 1700km long.

None of the OS HSR projects compare well with Australia. You are either dealingw ith shorter distances, massive populations, far lower socioeconomic standards or just logistically something that is easier to build and service, like centralised Madrid, Centralised Paris, under sea tunnels connecting countries or China and Tawian. Switziland, almost the home of how to use rail for everyone in 21st century and they love their trains, has no HSR. Germany doesn't use the top end in speed.

Oh and thet, "business can work for the whole trip" argument. This is a very small % of even the business market. Trust me, I travel BC enough to look around see most read the paper, read books etc. Some do some work some of the time and with Airlines now able to allow mobile phones to work enroute, interesting to note most have either decided to not implement or in some cases disabled the technology after trialling and accepting that when confined to a small space for even 1hr next to someone else. Most of us don't want to hear what often are saying, often loudly nor want to be contacted. Its a safe zone from mobiles. Train is no difference, worse as I'm stuck with them for longer on same route.

regards

Shane

 
arctic Assistant Commissioner

Location: Zurich

You cant compare Australia with Spain, as Spain has far lower wages, and labor costs
are a significant part of building large infrastructure projects.
Spain is now close to bankrupt , and will need bailing out just like Greece.
Thats what happens when you spend billions of $ you dont have.

- MD



There have been a number of implied comments here that somehow the evils of HSR is what has driven the European Financial Crisis. If that were so, Greece would be covered by HSRs. It does not have even one. I could just as easily say (I'm not) that Greece has a financial crisis because they lack the economic benefits of HSR.

As for Spain - the HSR network they have cost 60bn and have a total debt of >2000bn.

Thats 3%.

The real question for Spain that has not been answered: Are they better off with one or without one?

cheers

- arctic

$60B?, unlikely in 2012 dollars. Do you have a reference? Answer your question, would they be better off without it? Probably considering they have 25% unemployment. Unlikely their HSR is cash flow positive. The 3% is just part of the big picture of over spending. Its a railway they really didn't have the cash to build in first place, along with other stuff and the will have a generation of unemployment to pay for it. Maybe there are other things that should have been dropped first? Imagine finishing school and being told half the people in the class room will be unemployed and a job at Macca's is considered aspirational. I'm sure they would love to have 3% less debt right now. Forget HSR in Australia, it doesn't add up. We don't have the population density, the close proximty, the justification, or the money. Even if its $100B Mel to Bris, it will always rank 2nd to airlines as the times are too slow. interest payments will still exceed $200/ticket. Spain has also been able to establish a HSR culture because with Madrid in centre of country and most of rest within 700km radiating out to most major centres, its becoming a natural choice. Australia is unlikely to get past Syd-Mel for a log long time and then its Brisbane after that, zip and it won't compete on Bris-Mel traffic. So only a fraction of potential air routes covered. CO2 argument. I need to find but I have read articles that said HSR can be similar in CO2/person/km to modern planes. Yes there are options to reduce CO2 emitted per MW. Airlines are also progressively bringing down their emissions.

- RTT_Rules



It was a 2010 reference and if its sunk investment should remain so:


Through 2010, the nation had invested about $60 billion to build and equip its network of high-speed rail lines, according to data from Spain’s Ministry of Public Works and Transport.
- californiawatch.org



This is from an anti-HSR article so no accusations of bias please.

I don't get the link between 25% unemployment in Spain and HSR - are you saying the unemployment rate would be lower if they had not built HSR?? If so - how? 

Finally - let me be clear - in these series of posts, I have not established an argument for doing HSR in Oz and nor do I really want to. That's for the study outcome. What I have seen is some claims and statements that I felt needed challenging on the anti HSR bandwagon. Its just as easy to get carried away with an anti argument as a pro one. I hope that's OK with everyone.Very Happy

cheers

 
cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: Waiting for the sky to fall, the seas to rise... and to see a train on the SSFL!

People throw around the $60-100+ billion almost like it's small change. I'm sure the road/health/education/defence lobbies would want a bit Wink

Whilst I like my trains there is no imperative to have HSR here - anymore than there is to have a NSW/Vic colony on Mars paid for by all the Australian Tax payers and I miss my space shuttle.

 
arctic Assistant Commissioner

Location: Zurich

The $61B vs $108B is a 30% +/- figure. Typical how you est a project early on and working in heavy industry, they usually go up more than down. And based on past experience with govt projects, they nearly all go up and up alot further than down. Fact is number is so high either way is not affordable. 1.5m per month for the Mel-Can-Syd-GC-Bris corriodore, half is 0.75m/mth or 9mpa, ok lets go the full 10mpa. $61B (lower end) requires $3B in interest annual payments = $300/ticket. Ok somehow you manage to get alot more regional driving so make it 20mpa, still $150/ticket on average to cover the price of interest payments. Or if you want it interest free,capital repayment based on 50 years operation. How is this viable???? And after you have blown that money, you still have around Australia (apart from 50% of Qld NCL), freight trains running along 19th century track forcing around 3 x as much traffic that potentially could go via rail onto roads. Yet realistically the HSR has done bugger all to reduce passenger use of roads as even 10mpa off the Mel-Bris corridore is a drop in ocean. Rail freights share on the same corridore is so low that you can practically say with right in vestment you could reduce by 1/3. The CO2 credentials don't wash as an excuse to spend all this money, the one govt that introduced a CO2 tax doesn't care. You don't see them rushing out saying look $2B spent on Syd-Mel rail corridore will reduce CO2 by x amount by getting rid of 19th century alignments or really attacking the S-Bris corridore. They know the major leap forward for intercapital freight volumes on eastern corridore is O/N delivery capable and avoiding Syd curfew. Just like they don't care about the 500mtpa of CO2 from coal that will soon be headed OS. Too busy making domestic power users pay more, generating more general revenuse from the CO2 tax and creating social welfare under a CO2 tax and sending big industry OS. Spend that $61B on freight corridores and commuter rail improvements and you will save alot more CO2 tax than HSR ever will as the paradaigm shift from road to rail (for both freight and commuter rail) in CO2 reduction is far more and a much larger market than air to HSR rail. You will also do far more to the country as a whole than just one corridore for which you need to demolish a path 100m 1700km long. None of the OS HSR projects compare well with Australia. You are either dealingw ith shorter distances, massive populations, far lower socioeconomic standards or just logistically something that is easier to build and service, like centralised Madrid, Centralised Paris, under sea tunnels connecting countries or China and Tawian. Switziland, almost the home of how to use rail for everyone in 21st century and they love their trains, has no HSR. Germany doesn't use the top end in speed. Oh and thet, "business can work for the whole trip" argument. This is a very small % of even the business market. Trust me, I travel BC enough to look around see most read the paper, read books etc. Some do some work some of the time and with Airlines now able to allow mobile phones to work enroute, interesting to note most have either decided to not implement or in some cases disabled the technology after trialling and accepting that when confined to a small space for even 1hr next to someone else. Most of us don't want to hear what often are saying, often loudly nor want to be contacted. Its a safe zone from mobiles. Train is no difference, worse as I'm stuck with them for longer on same route. regards Shane

- RTT_Rules



Had to have a bex and a good lie down after that one. I hope you remembered to take a breath Smile

Germany does have 300km/h HSR - the country is too small for much more unless you go over the border to France and their ICE3 trains are good for 320km/h. As I've said before I've been on an German ICE at that speed.

As for Switzerland - if we dismiss countries who have HSR on the basis of some or other "difference" to Oz we cant argue we shouldn't have HSR by using example countries who dont have HSR that are so completely different, in every way to Oz. As we all know Switzerland is tiny and mountainous meaning vast expense and little travel time reduction for HSR. Having said that and even with these constraints the Swiss are actually putting in some 250km/h HSR - now it's time to dismiss them as an example.Very Happy

I'm sorry I ever mentioned the Spanish and their damn inquisition, I mean HSR. Any HSR for Oz must stand and fall on it's own merits.

In your pax numbers you forgot to include induced demand - a common enough feature.

 - and I usually work when I fly international business - thats why the company buys the high priced ticket. If others want to bludge, thats their problem - unless they are my employee. Confused

cheers

 
snowcone Station Master

Well there's lot's of reading in all these posts and I got disinterested and started "speed reading", but just a couple of points that make me mad.

It really makes my blood boil whenever CO2 becomes an excuse in Australia not to do anything or improve anything.
The rest of the world is getting on with living with CO2

and

We never seem to have any form of Government that considers the other benefits of infrastructure projects.

Yes a HSR would be nice to have but the cost is a bit high - but what about the additional employment during construction and maintaining it, not just directly but indirectly too, for all the sub contractors and earthworks companies and concrete companies, and the fuel they all use, and the additional vehicles they will require - the list is virtually endless - more work uniforms, more lunch delivery trucks - there doesn't seem to be an industry that doesn't benefit from large infrastructure projects - and all this helps keep the whole country going.

If we sit back and say everything is too expensive, or too hard, or it will affect 3 possums and a koala so it can't be done, we might as well give up now and turn all the lights off.

For too long now Australia has been treading water and not getting on with major projects. You only have to watch Nat Geo or Discovery to see what the rest of the world are doing.

 
cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: Waiting for the sky to fall, the seas to rise... and to see a train on the SSFL!

Well there's lot's of reading in all these posts and I got disinterested and started "speed reading", but just a couple of points that make me mad.
..
If we sit back and say everything is too expensive, or too hard, or it will affect 3 possums and a koala so it can't be done, we might as well give up now and turn all the lights off.

For too long now Australia has been treading water and not getting on with major projects. You only have to watch Nat Geo or Discovery to see what the rest of the world are doing.

- snowcone



Facts or beat ups Laughing

Stop listening to the shock jocks, reading the rags, turn off ACA/TdTn, take a bex and have a good lie down.

P.S. sounds like you need to sell infrastructure to build infrastructure and $3b doesn't build you much anymore.  Wink

 
RTT_Rules Minister for Railways

Location: Dubai UAE

Well there's lot's of reading in all these posts and I got disinterested and started "speed reading", but just a couple of points that make me mad.

It really makes my blood boil whenever CO2 becomes an excuse in Australia not to do anything or improve anything.
The rest of the world is getting on with living with CO2

and

We never seem to have any form of Government that considers the other benefits of infrastructure projects.

Yes a HSR would be nice to have but the cost is a bit high - but what about the additional employment during construction and maintaining it, not just directly but indirectly too, for all the sub contractors and earthworks companies and concrete companies, and the fuel they all use, and the additional vehicles they will require - the list is virtually endless - more work uniforms, more lunch delivery trucks - there doesn't seem to be an industry that doesn't benefit from large infrastructure projects - and all this helps keep the whole country going.

If we sit back and say everything is too expensive, or too hard, or it will affect 3 possums and a koala so it can't be done, we might as well give up now and turn all the lights off.

For too long now Australia has been treading water and not getting on with major projects. You only have to watch Nat Geo or Discovery to see what the rest of the world are doing.

- snowcone

A few countries are going hard on CO2, most a taking a more passive approach. ie doing things that won't hurt their economies.

"We never seem to have a govt interested in Infratsructure", might be a reason for that. In last 20+ years much of what govts do is closely aligned with what the country needs?

Unemployment is currently 5%, if we are only building the HSR for jobs sake, its a white elephant before we start and the money is better invested elsewhere. Jobs is an outcome and best left to Private industry rather than create yet another over staffed govt department. At 5% unemeployment (normally stated as being close to full employment and going by numbers brought in from OS, probably over employment), it could also be sai that most of those currently not working, won't be working on any HSR.

If a HSR is so viable, let Private industry pay, build and operate it. I doubt not one person would argue with this approach. What seems to be the stance by the pro- HSR'ers is that the govt should build it because others have one.

Spain, would they have better unemployment figures without much of the HSR? HSR spending is just part of their problem of gross over spending. So answer is simply yes. Without the unsustainable borrowing to build things like their HSR and assume just their normal high social welfare spending, the country would be closer to the finacial status of France and Germany. (I have dutch cousin single mum who stayed in Spain 8 years ago rather than return to Holland because she said they gave so much more money for childbirth, paid maternity etc. And Holland is hardly tight pocketted when it comes to maternity payments)

Germany has MSR with some touching +300km/hr (for limited distances) as others have pointed out and expanding as it can afford. More socialistic France started eariler but while ranked up some debt, is just ok. (Note they have still broken Euro rules on debt), but mostly their economy is stong enough to cover current debt levels, although there has been alot of belt tightening as per the recent election. Spain tried to live the high life and failed. Their economy was a backwater in late 80's thanks to Franco and they have tried to play catchup way to quickly in providing high levels of social welfare and infrastucture. My Auntie in Argentina used to tell me her Father would say they are going to Europe, she'd ask about Spain (speak the language), his response, we are not going to a 3rd world country. That was in 60 and 70's. Pot calling kettle black I know, but you get the point.

Perhaps Spain could have cut other waste to make the HSR affordable. But I pointing out its part of big picture.

Switziland, as other said, yes they starting to hit 250km/hr, nothing wrong with that if using freight tracks in Australia. But as you said, they are just getting there. The argument also implied, its a very hilly country, but the Australian alps in NSW, ie section covered in winter snow is bigger than Switziland and this is the land a HSR via Canberra has to punch through and even the Swiss are not doing +300. Can if anything should be a branch line.

Anyway, the Australian govt has distanced itrself from the transport of people longdistance, ie selling airlines and airports. Why should they get back into the business now just to compete with their previously privatised businesses. If HSR is viable, let private industry build it. They won't because they cannot compete against 21st century airfares.

regards

Shane

 
RTT_Rules Minister for Railways

Location: Dubai UAE

I suppose what I want to see from the pro-HSR for Australia punters is the business case, generally all I see is feel good or keeping up with Jones.

No feel good factors, no rest of world is doing it so we should, not it will make us a 1st world country (the comment Australia is only 3rd world country you can drink the water is so far from truth its not funny), no "enter your choice of bankrupt country" have one, no comparisons with under sea tunnels which don't apply to the Australian model.... Give us the hard numbers that will make this pay commerically or how much will the taxpayer fork out and then tell me how this money is not better spent on freight/commuter/regional rail.

I also don't trust the $60B from Spain, a country which is now close to bankruptcy so their numbers could be a bit rubbery.

I look at that proposed $61B, then add some co Private investment for projects like NT rail line, Syd & Bris Airport trains and think this could be turned into a $100B investment in rail infrastructure in Australia and how much more this would achieve.

 
RTT_Rules Minister for Railways

Location: Dubai UAE

/>In your pax numbers you forgot to include induced demand - a common enough feature.

 - and I usually work when I fly international business - thats why the company buys the high priced ticket. If others want to bludge, thats their problem - unless they are my employee. Confused

cheers

- arctic

Haven't travelled BC in Australia, but certainly OS. Flying I'd say a fraction in BC work alot of trip, some work part of trip, half do not. Looking around the BC louges, yes during day you see a bit more activity, evenings and night, nope. I do on a as needs basis. When I kept the production numbers and planning, yes alot. Now I don't and moved on, hardly unless I am going from one meeting to another and need to prepare from previous. However I do find it a good time to just read stuff from work I normally don't get time. But as BC is a small part of the plane, it doesn't transfer to a HSR.

 
cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: Waiting for the sky to fall, the seas to rise... and to see a train on the SSFL!

Don't know why Spain is relevant as it has almost 6 times the population of NSW and is smaller in size.

It's also backrolled by the euro - as we are all (and to be even more so) painfully aware.

You would need to flog 5 Gina's or 30x NSW electricity generation assets to someone with the cash to pay for it. And then if it's the Arabs/Indians/Chinese watch ACA/2D2N go ape Laughing

Oh dear - there's that bl##dy elephant again   Embarassed

 
5814 Chief Train Controller

Yes like the hundred million a day Red Leads borrowing to help destroy the joint .  

- BDA



Stick to stuff you know about BDA of which there is plenty. On this, you are embarrassing.

 
BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney

Only if you are a rabid socialist Gillard supporter . 

 
petey3801 Chief Commissioner

Location: On the rails

Whether or not HSR should be built right now will be decided by someone who gets paid a lot more money than me...

However, I do believe the Government should at least reserve the corridor/slowly buy/aquire the land (and lease/rent it back, where possible) required to reserve said corridor for a time in the future when a HSR does become viable/affordable to build. That way, the land is there and it will be much cheaper to build it when the time comes along.

 
cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: Waiting for the sky to fall, the seas to rise... and to see a train on the SSFL!

Whether or not HSR should be built right now will be decided by someone who gets paid a lot more money than me...

However, I do believe the Government should at least reserve the corridor/slowly buy/aquire the land (and lease/rent it back, where possible) required to reserve said corridor for a time in the future when a HSR does become viable/affordable to build. That way, the land is there and it will be much cheaper to build it when the time comes along.

- petey3801



No need to...

When the time come just take over the pacific / hume highway corridors as long distance motor transport will be unaffordable anyway Idea

 
cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: Waiting for the sky to fall, the seas to rise... and to see a train on the SSFL!

Only if you are a rabid socialist Gillard supporter . 

- BDA



Why so serious  Exclamation

So now that we have run rabbot run, does that make the red queen (does my bum look big enough in this) - Alice in wonderland. More so with parliament run by smiling al and soft wood.

One does anything to stay in power, the other will do anything to get into power. Sort of puts things into perspective.

(Good old Don Chipp - greatest liberal ever)

As for the HSR we may have a REAL labor guvmnt one day and they can socialise the lot - if the libs mates haven't flogged it all off by then Laughing

 
Draffa Chief Commissioner

Think you know more that the global networks of diesel engine producing mobs do you ?

- BDA

Dunno.  Reckon there's a chance I might.

Issue with Australia is we have no common infrastructure corriodores. So gas, power, phone, roads and rail ofter cross the country in their own island, carving up large parts of the country side. We have little inter industry mix where one is built to feed off another. Such as desal plants being remote from thermal power and not therefore using thermals waste heat energy. Improving the cost return of both and reducing significant CO2 emissions (look at Middle east, desal plant is connected to gas turbine power plants for good reason)..
- RTT_Rules

This is an excellent point.  For too long there has been no overaching planning structures in place to ensure land is reserved for multiple uses.  That 'attitude' is changing, slowly (the Mandurah line is a perfect example), but then we have cases like Campbell Newman disbanding the local planning organisation (whatever its name was) here in QLD, handing 'planning' back to Councils and whoever has the most stuffed brown paper bag.
There's so much sunk infrastructure it's hard to know where to begin.

 
RTT_Rules Minister for Railways

Location: Dubai UAE

Whether or not HSR should be built right now will be decided by someone who gets paid a lot more money than me...

However, I do believe the Government should at least reserve the corridor/slowly buy/aquire the land (and lease/rent it back, where possible) required to reserve said corridor for a time in the future when a HSR does become viable/affordable to build. That way, the land is there and it will be much cheaper to build it when the time comes along.

- petey3801



No need to...

When the time come just take over the pacific / hume highway corridors as long distance motor transport will be unaffordable anyway Idea

- cootanee

Cost of motoring doesn't keep cars off roads in countries with much lower spending power than Aussies now, it won't in future. They will just get smaller and use less and less fuel. The hwys of today will never be under used roadways in the future.

 

You must be logged in to reply

  Search thread   Image gallery
« 1 2 3 ... 15 16 of 20 17 18 19 20 »
 
Display from: