We will have to agree to disagree on this one. The ARTC don't have any standards because if they did then the current track wouldn't be the complete joke it currently is. It is the ARTC's responsibility and the NSW Government isn't going to fund that joke of an organisation. Macarthur to Albury is the responsibility of the Feds and the ARTC until 2064.

What NSW is looking at is a fast rail corridor completely separate from the main south but that is not for quite some time and likely to be around the time the ARTC's lease comes to an end. https://future.transport.nsw.gov.au/project-highlights/fast-rail

In the short term however the new regional rolling stock for non electrified intercity and regional services and the metro's take priority in.

What drugs are you smoking? I've seen you post some wacky comments in the past but this tops the lot.

- The ARTC clearly has standards, you only have to see their website to see this.
- The current track is a combined legacy of 100 years of NSW govt investment and available funding from the Feds.
- NSW handed over a line so bad that they were forced to hand over $10m's in deferred maintenance when they handed over the track. Remember "that bridge" fiasco"

However this didn't make up deferred capital investment including realignment and other modernization. Remind me again when the electric staff was removed at the Qld border and the manual boxes on the south main closed and condition of the "timber" sleepers in 2004?

NSW has no idea what its looking for.

When the ARTC lease is up it will be renewed.

Now do we need to talk about the co-funded govt projects in NSW?

Well again RTT we will have to disagree. That high speed rail link is an official nsw government page and I have no idea if it will happen but what it points out to me is that they aren't interested in doing anything with the main south.

The current state of the main south and vic north east is 100% the fault of the ARTC. Whatever quality state the track was handed to the ARTC in does not matter because the ARTC have had ample opportunity to fix it all with the money they have been given. Blaming the NSW Government, NSWGR or railcorp for this is like blaming me for selling you a computer in 2008 that can't run the new ms flight simulator in 2020. The fault in 2020 lies 100% with the ARTC.

All that stuff you mention about the electric staff doesn't matter because that is how railcorp operated those lines and when the ARTC says deferred maintenance they really just mean timber sleeper replacement. If they were in as bad condition as they say then what made them think shoving larger and heavier concrete sleepers on to the same track bed was going to make things better. No the lack of standards in the organisation means there was no one to point out that extra work to fix the track bed would also need to be done.

http://www.artc.com.au/library/agreement_asig.pdf

Well again RTT we will have to disagree. That high speed rail link is an official nsw government page and I have no idea if it will happen but what it points out to me is that they aren't interested in doing anything with the main south.

The current state of the main south and vic north east is 100% the fault of the ARTC. Whatever quality state the track was handed to the ARTC in does not matter because the ARTC have had ample opportunity to fix it all with the money they have been given. Blaming the NSW Government, NSWGR or railcorp for this is like blaming me for selling you a computer in 2008 that can't run the new ms flight simulator in 2020. The fault in 2020 lies 100% with the ARTC.

All that stuff you mention about the electric staff doesn't matter because that is how railcorp operated those lines and when the ARTC says deferred maintenance they really just mean timber sleeper replacement. If they were in as bad condition as they say then what made them think shoving larger and heavier concrete sleepers on to the same track bed was going to make things better. No the lack of standards in the organisation means there was no one to point out that extra work to fix the track bed would also need to be done.

http://www.artc.com.au/library/agreement_asig.pdf

I'm sure the state wants to do alot of things but can you see them building a greenfield route for a small commuter service? Answer, NO!

The most cost effective approach which has been stated many times by many people is to build a multi use higher performance railway using both existing and in some location greenfield (or rather former ROW) to improve the alignment.

The current state of the South Main and NE Vic line is a legacy of poor management by the respective states for decades. The funding made available to the ARTC, read that again Sim's, the funding made available to the ARTC with the political directive on how that money was to be spent and combined with unusual wet weather resulted in a failed sleeper upgrade program using a commonly used process across elsewhere including the ARTC's other lines years. Part of the issue with the NE line was that the old BG line was on the edge of being closed it was so bad.

Here, I'll sell you a 1974 Leyland Marina and now I expect you to win the Bathurst, don't blame me after I've sold it, its all up to you how you invest!

So you think its ok for you to drive across town and at every set of traffic lights you have to get out and push a button to get the green signal?

Deferred maintenance includes investment in replacing old technology, ballast and bridge maintenance. How many sleepers were replaced by the ARTC? Or rather % of the entire route.

To say the ARTC has no standards is ludicrous. The ARTC performed the task with the money they had available, so why do you think the ARTC Management should be held accountable and the reason they were not is because the govt knew where the problem was.

Well again RTT we will have to disagree. That high speed rail link is an official nsw government page and I have no idea if it will happen but what it points out to me is that they aren't interested in doing anything with the main south.

The current state of the main south and vic north east is 100% the fault of the ARTC. Whatever quality state the track was handed to the ARTC in does not matter because the ARTC have had ample opportunity to fix it all with the money they have been given. Blaming the NSW Government, NSWGR or railcorp for this is like blaming me for selling you a computer in 2008 that can't run the new ms flight simulator in 2020. The fault in 2020 lies 100% with the ARTC.

All that stuff you mention about the electric staff doesn't matter because that is how railcorp operated those lines and when the ARTC says deferred maintenance they really just mean timber sleeper replacement. If they were in as bad condition as they say then what made them think shoving larger and heavier concrete sleepers on to the same track bed was going to make things better. No the lack of standards in the organisation means there was no one to point out that extra work to fix the track bed would also need to be done.

http://www.artc.com.au/library/agreement_asig.pdf

I am wondering how many track defect caused derailments were happening pre ARTC lease?

How many after?

Disagree as much as you want but NSW isn't going to put any money in to any line that the ARTC operates. The feds wanted the line and so they have to fund the line. If you ask might the NSW government invest in a new line south of macarthur separate from what was leased then that is a possibility but money won't be going in to the existing main south while the ARTC operate the line.

It is the same reason no NSW Government money is going in to the inland rail. NSW has it own lines to fund without having to look after what the feds control. The only thing the NSW Government is funding is grade separations with road which comes out of the road budget and not rail.

Nope, except for Australian State vs Australian Fed pig-headedness this is quite possible as demonstrated in perhaps similar circumstances where an operator funds infrastructure improvements they don`t own:

• Swiss funding improvements in France to allow faster journeys to CH (not even in the same country, different infrastructure standards different culture, historical animosity, both not in the EU and not the same language).
• BNSF funding improvements of infrastructure on the Union Pacific Mainline in the Tehachapi mountains. More than once.
• Amtrak funding improvements in freight railroads they dont own for the benefit of passenger services.
• etc..

Where it makes sense it can be done, but apparently (like improving journey times) is impossible in Oz?

Cheers

RTT I never said that the nsw high speed rail thing will happen just that the NSW Government is looking at it which means they aren't thinking about doing anything with the current main south aside from the new trains. NSW Government isn't going to touch it while under ARTC control and they are trying to keep the Sydney system working.

The whole point of leasing the line out to the ARTC was so the NSW Government didn't have to spend the money on these lines. The ARTC was going to fix all this but they failed and now you think the NSW Government is going to fund fixing this line. No way in hell will that happen unless the ARTC give up there lease. If the ARTC gives up the lease then you could probably see electrification happen but not until the ARTC are well and truly out of the picture.

Nope, except for Australian State vs Australian Fed pig-headedness this is quite possible as demonstrated in perhaps similar circumstances where an operator funds infrastructure improvements they don`t own:

• Swiss funding improvements in France to allow faster journeys to CH (not even in the same country, different infrastructure standards different culture, historical animosity, both not in the EU and not the same language).
• BNSF funding improvements of infrastructure on the Union Pacific Mainline in the Tehachapi mountains. More than once.
• Amtrak funding improvements in freight railroads they dont own for the benefit of passenger services.
• etc..

Where it makes sense it can be done, but apparently (like improving journey times) is impossible in Oz?

Cheers

Now you get it arctic. Things are much different here because of population and distance and steam age era rail alignments on the east coast.

Australia doesn't have the spare cash to do this like european nations have. We don't have private below rail operators like the US does to make a company want to invest in someone elses infrastructure because it might help them out. Freight is 90+% road in Australia. Private freight transport companies are 95% road and plane operations in Australia. It is completely different to anywhere else in the world where rail freight makes up a significant proportion.

The ARTC took over the main south promising to increase rail freight to 30-40% share but under their stewardship it has fallen to less then 5%. Heck they can't even organise the inland properly and they still have issues in QLD. Tell me this is a sign of good management. The ARTC keep thinking big when what they should have been doing is thinking small. All it needed was small alignment correction here and there. Cut out a loop here and there a little bit at a time but no they always need the big promotion item to keep there greedy managers in profile.

I am wondering how many track defect caused derailments were happening pre ARTC lease?

How many after?

I'm sure someone would know but we have freight and passenger trains falling off the tracks and pulling apart because of the track condition. Let's just say for sure it hasn't gotten any better because why is the freight rail task between Sydney and Melbourne now less then 5% which is down from about 10-15% before the ARTC took over. The numbers given for the SSFL have never ever come close to being met. The intermodal at Mooorebank is probably the only thing that may make the SSFL not a complete white elephant. Certainly the Sydney to Melbourne traffic doesn't help.

RTT I never said that the nsw high speed rail thing will happen just that the NSW Government is looking at it which means they aren't thinking about doing anything with the current main south aside from the new trains. NSW Government isn't going to touch it while under ARTC control and they are trying to keep the Sydney system working.

The whole point of leasing the line out to the ARTC was so the NSW Government didn't have to spend the money on these lines. The ARTC was going to fix all this but they failed and now you think the NSW Government is going to fund fixing this line. No way in hell will that happen unless the ARTC give up there lease. If the ARTC gives up the lease then you could probably see electrification happen but not until the ARTC are well and truly out of the picture.

1) Neither did I. I said can you imagine them funding a Greenfield railway for a small interurban commuter base? The answer is no!

2) Yes, the Greenfield proposal is pie in the sky stuff.

3) Should the NSW govt be looking towards upgrading the South Main services via infrastructure spending, it will be in partnership with ARTC AS HAS HAPPENED ELSEWHERE IN NSW.

4) The whole point of leasing the regional network was to allow a centralised one stop solution to infrastructure management and funding that is not blinded by a line in the river / mountain range and thus save what's left of the interstate rail traffic before it was too late. The National highways get fed funding for a reason, so should the national railways.

Electrification can happened provided it doesn't compromise the ARTC double stacking. Unlike your view of things, the ARTC has a standard that precludes the construction of any new fixed infrastructure that permanently impacts on the ability for the line to be eventually operated with DS trains. OH could be installed now at the standard height, but would there would be a requirement should the line be converted to DS, the OH would need to be raised or removed by the owner.

The South Main from Moorebank to Coota will likely be converted to DS standards before the end of the decade as this will enable Sydney to be connected to the DS network after the Inland is complete.

Its extremely unlikely the OH for commuter and regional services is viable on the South Main from Macarthur to Goulburn for a few decades to come or at least until there is a 6 car passenger train every 60min for 16 h a day at the very minimum. However this doesn't stop the more critical approach of joint funding realignment for which should the NSW and Fed govts actually come to the table on the topic a likely beneficial outcome and joint funding will be reached. Personally I feel for the benefit of improved Sydney - Canberra services this solution is not too far in the distant future, but there are currently other priorities.

I am wondering how many track defect caused derailments were happening pre ARTC lease?

How many after?

I'm sure someone would know but we have freight and passenger trains falling off the tracks and pulling apart because of the track condition. Let's just say for sure it hasn't gotten any better because why is the freight rail task between Sydney and Melbourne now less then 5% which is down from about 10-15% before the ARTC took over. The numbers given for the SSFL have never ever come close to being met. The intermodal at Mooorebank is probably the only thing that may make the SSFL not a complete white elephant. Certainly the Sydney to Melbourne traffic doesn't help.

I'm calling BS on this claim derailments are worse off.

The ARTC is not responsible for changes in truck technology and govt funding of highways and even policy for coastal shipping.

Under NSW state ownership traffic volumes had been in rapid decline with growing losses for decades.

Nope, except for Australian State vs Australian Fed pig-headedness this is quite possible as demonstrated in perhaps similar circumstances where an operator funds infrastructure improvements they don`t own:

• Swiss funding improvements in France to allow faster journeys to CH (not even in the same country, different infrastructure standards different culture, historical animosity, both not in the EU and not the same language).
• BNSF funding improvements of infrastructure on the Union Pacific Mainline in the Tehachapi mountains. More than once.
• Amtrak funding improvements in freight railroads they dont own for the benefit of passenger services.
• etc..

Where it makes sense it can be done, but apparently (like improving journey times) is impossible in Oz?

Cheers

Now you get it arctic. Things are much different here because of population and distance and steam age era rail alignments on the east coast.

Australia doesn't have the spare cash to do this like european nations have. We don't have private below rail operators like the US does to make a company want to invest in someone elses infrastructure because it might help them out. Freight is 90+% road in Australia. Private freight transport companies are 95% road and plane operations in Australia. It is completely different to anywhere else in the world where rail freight makes up a significant proportion.

The ARTC took over the main south promising to increase rail freight to 30-40% share but under their stewardship it has fallen to less then 5%. Heck they can't even organise the inland properly and they still have issues in QLD. Tell me this is a sign of good management. The ARTC keep thinking big when what they should have been doing is thinking small. All it needed was small alignment correction here and there. Cut out a loop here and there a little bit at a time but no they always need the big promotion item to keep there greedy managers in profile.

I think you missed my point - thats its possible, feasible and desirable to invest in infrastructre you dont own. Your patronizing comments on "spare cash" are not correct and your comments on market share ignore (as they always have) east west volumes.

Oh well, moving on.

Nope, except for Australian State vs Australian Fed pig-headedness this is quite possible as demonstrated in perhaps similar circumstances where an operator funds infrastructure improvements they don`t own:

• Swiss funding improvements in France to allow faster journeys to CH (not even in the same country, different infrastructure standards different culture, historical animosity, both not in the EU and not the same language).
• BNSF funding improvements of infrastructure on the Union Pacific Mainline in the Tehachapi mountains. More than once.
• Amtrak funding improvements in freight railroads they dont own for the benefit of passenger services.
• etc..

Where it makes sense it can be done, but apparently (like improving journey times) is impossible in Oz?

Cheers

Now you get it arctic. Things are much different here because of population and distance and steam age era rail alignments on the east coast.

Australia doesn't have the spare cash to do this like european nations have. We don't have private below rail operators like the US does to make a company want to invest in someone elses infrastructure because it might help them out. Freight is 90+% road in Australia. Private freight transport companies are 95% road and plane operations in Australia. It is completely different to anywhere else in the world where rail freight makes up a significant proportion.

The ARTC took over the main south promising to increase rail freight to 30-40% share but under their stewardship it has fallen to less then 5%. Heck they can't even organise the inland properly and they still have issues in QLD. Tell me this is a sign of good management. The ARTC keep thinking big when what they should have been doing is thinking small. All it needed was small alignment correction here and there. Cut out a loop here and there a little bit at a time but no they always need the big promotion item to keep there greedy managers in profile.

I think you missed my point - thats its possible, feasible and desirable to invest in infrastructre you dont own. Your patronizing comments on "spare cash" are not correct and your comments on market share ignore (as they always have) east west volumes.

Oh well, moving on.

We have the cash we just don't know how to do it.

3) Should the NSW govt be looking towards upgrading the South Main services via infrastructure spending, it will be in partnership with ARTC AS HAS HAPPENED ELSEWHERE IN NSW.

4) The whole point of leasing the regional network was to allow a centralised one stop solution to infrastructure management and funding that is not blinded by a line in the river / mountain range and thus save what's left of the interstate rail traffic before it was too late. The National highways get fed funding for a reason, so should the national railways.

Electrification can happened provided it doesn't compromise the ARTC double stacking. Unlike your view of things, the ARTC has a standard that precludes the construction of any new fixed infrastructure that permanently impacts on the ability for the line to be eventually operated with DS trains. OH could be installed now at the standard height, but would there would be a requirement should the line be converted to DS, the OH would need to be raised or removed by the owner.

The South Main from Moorebank to Coota will likely be converted to DS standards before the end of the decade as this will enable Sydney to be connected to the DS network after the Inland is complete.

Its extremely unlikely the OH for commuter and regional services is viable on the South Main from Macarthur to Goulburn for a few decades to come or at least until there is a 6 car passenger train every 60min for 16 h a day at the very minimum. However this doesn't stop the more critical approach of joint funding realignment for which should the NSW and Fed govts actually come to the table on the topic a likely beneficial outcome and joint funding will be reached. Personally I feel for the benefit of improved Sydney - Canberra services this solution is not too far in the distant future, but there are currently other priorities.

Agree on points 1 and 2. my point was that if the NSW Government is looking at it then they aren't interested in co working / funding with the ARTC.

Point 3 has not happened anywhere else in NSW on any railway outside of a road bridge renewal or level crossing which is peanuts and not relevant. The ARTC were contracted to maintain the CRN but the CRN was and still is NSWGR track and not leased to the ARTC. This is now being done by John Holland Rail in any case.

Point 4 is still no. Electrification is never going to happen with ARTC in charge of the main south. It doesn't matter what is technically possibe it just isn't going to happen. The ARTC pulled down all the overhead on the metropolitan line so they don't have to deal with it and so what makes you think they would want it on any track that they operate.

Dual stacking is never going to happen in to Sydney. What silly reason is there to have any need for DS along this line. After the Inland is complete there is even less need for dual stacking in to Sydney since there is never going to be any DS capability on the ST network for these trains to go north or west. You have dual track in to Sydney which completely and utterly removes any need whatsoever for DS. This is why Parkes is being setup as it is so DS'ing can occur there.

These new regional trains with the Panto on them give NSW trainlink some efficiency gains and even some operational flexibility if more carriages are ordered. They are a hybrid with batteries and so it might even be possible to add extra batteries and have the Kiama to Bomaderry route on purely electric power with the generators there purely for backup purposes. There may not even be a need to extend the overhead south of Macarthur.

I'm calling BS on this claim derailments are worse off.

The ARTC is not responsible for changes in truck technology and govt funding of highways and even policy for coastal shipping.

Under NSW state ownership traffic volumes had been in rapid decline with growing losses for decades.

Just a couple of weeks before that fatal XPT crash there was a freight train derailment in the same area and just before that a freight train fell off the tracks at goulburn and there was another derailment just near menangle before that and I'm sure there are many many others that I have not mentioned. The XPT and several trains have had centre pin failures and both XPT and freight trains have split apart on several occasions. I don't know if it is worse but it certainly isn't better.

As I said to you before it doesn't not matter what the situation was before the ARTC took over. It may have been bad but the ARTC took over and promised to spend money and reverse this position. They haven't and things are worse because if it wasn't then why has the freight task declined even more. New Truck technology and the highways doesn't help but why can't the federal government put some of the highway money in to fixing the alignments instead. The NSW Government isn't going to jointly spend money in this area where the federal government should be funding these fixes but as Tony Abbott mentioned. Rail is not in the federal governments DNA.

I think you missed my point - thats its possible, feasible and desirable to invest in infrastructre you dont own. Your patronizing comments on "spare cash" are not correct and your comments on market share ignore (as they always have) east west volumes.

Oh well, moving on.

It doesn't matter if it is possible. My comments are not meant to be patronising they are explaining reality of cost in Australian dollars. What might cost 100 million Euro over there will cost multiple times that in Australian dollars. As an example the Type 26 frigate that the UK and Australia are building is going to cost 8 billion pounds for the 8 UK versions and $35 billion for the 9 Australian ships.

Australia does not work like the rest of the world. What you might think is reasonable in europe just isn't going to happen in Australia. The NSW Government has it's own responsibilities to be worrying about and isn't going to be funding something like this. This is where the feds need to be standing up and putting all the money in. This is what the ARTC is supposed to be doing but isn't.

The reason why toll roads are getting built is because private companies like transurban fund large portions of these roads for 50 year tolling rights. There is not 1 single company willing to do this for rail in Australia.

Even east west volumes have been dropping recently from 90% down to about 70%.

We have the cash we just don't know how to do it.

Yeah probably true. It is also sort of like the border thing during covid here in Australia. There was no real valid reason for the closures in rural areas and especially locking off border towns but it happened because of state politics. For instance why does a covid outbreak in south western sydney mean the QLD Government should close the border to people in tweed heads which is only a hundred kilometre's from Brisbane and 800 from Sydney.

We have the cash we just don't know how to do it.

Yeah probably true. It is also sort of like the border thing during covid here in Australia. There was no real valid reason for the closures in rural areas and especially locking off border towns but it happened because of state politics. For instance why does a covid outbreak in south western sydney mean the QLD Government should close the border to people in tweed heads which is only a hundred kilometre's from Brisbane and 800 from Sydney.

You are now a medical expert?

I'm calling BS on this claim derailments are worse off.

The ARTC is not responsible for changes in truck technology and govt funding of highways and even policy for coastal shipping.

Under NSW state ownership traffic volumes had been in rapid decline with growing losses for decades.

Just a couple of weeks before that fatal XPT crash there was a freight train derailment in the same area and just before that a freight train fell off the tracks at goulburn and there was another derailment just near menangle before that and I'm sure there are many many others that I have not mentioned. The XPT and several trains have had centre pin failures and both XPT and freight trains have split apart on several occasions. I don't know if it is worse but it certainly isn't better.

As I said to you before it doesn't not matter what the situation was before the ARTC took over. It may have been bad but the ARTC took over and promised to spend money and reverse this position. They haven't and things are worse because if it wasn't then why has the freight task declined even more. New Truck technology and the highways doesn't help but why can't the federal government put some of the highway money in to fixing the alignments instead. The NSW Government isn't going to jointly spend money in this area where the federal government should be funding these fixes but as Tony Abbott mentioned. Rail is not in the federal governments DNA.

So nothing ever bad happened under NSW govt management
- Glenbrook
- Waterfall
- V-set crossing the road in blue mountains
- Cowan
- Cowan Bank
shall I continue???

Never in the history of railways has trains not broken apart during operation? Seems that a few trips to school when the V-set spilt is obviously wrong.

Perhaps find the actual stats before carrying on.

Sim's we all know the NE upgrade didn't go as planned, honestly big F'n deal. We also all know that the project was underfunded for the task required, but directed to proceed, the track ballast condition was antiquated due to decades of deferred maintenance and had the line not been handed over to the Fed's it would have been closed in the following months.  We also know that the project was hit with 1:100 year floods making the cheap installation problematic before the track is re-ballasted. We also know that the same installation process is extremely commonly used across all railways in Aust and OS. We also know that NSW govt maintenance on the regional network was non-existent, the interstate lines full of TSR's now mostly gone, poorly placed passing loops, inconsistent length passing loops, outdated train length limits, infrastructure induced late running, closed main south for months, and had manual safe working nearly 50 years after it should have been replaced. I believe one section/bridge of the BG was closed by the ARTC and the bridge was beyond economic repair and no longer safe to operate.

Shall I continue?

The ARTC promised nothing, the fed govt promised action. the NSW govt committed to nothing and under NSW govt management the who NCL future was brought into question during the 90's and closure north of Casino into Qld was discussed.

The freight task remains at around 55'ish B tonnes for non-coal under ARTC control, which it has all decade.

One more time, the NSW govt has joint funded other joint rail projects including the NSFL and will continue to do so where the benefit for passenger rail is required.

I agree with TA in that the states should be funding their own suburban rail networks, but this includes roads and other similar infrastructure as well, not hand picking one form of transport because you don't like it. However even applying TA's policies this does not preclude the upgrade of the South Main under a joint funding for the improvement of the South Main for both commuter, long regional passenger, Canberra - Syd and freight.

The best thing that has ever happened was the ARTC taking over interstate rail, while their funding is not where it needs to be, its a hell of alot more than it was getting under state ownership. You only have to look at the conditions of the interstate across the three eastern states prior to transfer. While you smeg about a few issues, the real issue was how much longer the eastern coast rail corridor would have remained viable and safe to operate had the situation not changed. There were rarely used freight lines in Brisbane in better condition than the interstate into Qld as another example.

I think you missed my point - thats its possible, feasible and desirable to invest in infrastructre you dont own. Your patronizing comments on "spare cash" are not correct and your comments on market share ignore (as they always have) east west volumes.

Oh well, moving on.

It doesn't matter if it is possible. My comments are not meant to be patronising they are explaining reality of cost in Australian dollars. What might cost 100 million Euro over there will cost multiple times that in Australian dollars. As an example the Type 26 frigate that the UK and Australia are building is going to cost 8 billion pounds for the 8 UK versions and $35 billion for the 9 Australian ships.

Australia does not work like the rest of the world. What you might think is reasonable in europe just isn't going to happen in Australia. The NSW Government has it's own responsibilities to be worrying about and isn't going to be funding something like this. This is where the feds need to be standing up and putting all the money in. This is what the ARTC is supposed to be doing but isn't.

The reason why toll roads are getting built is because private companies like transurban fund large portions of these roads for 50 year tolling rights. There is not 1 single company willing to do this for rail in Australia.

Even east west volumes have been dropping recently from 90% down to about 70%.

The Fed funded ARTC has never accepted responsibility for funding interurban rail, its not in its funding mandate as dictated by the feds and what you are failing to accept is that the NSW govt currently funds the track maintenance for the interurban services on the South Main via access fees. should the Interurban trains stop tomorrow, much of the line would be single tracked the next day.

$28b into the Sydney metro leaves a $2.2b investment in suburban metro in Melbourne in the dust.

Amazing investment in Sydney will will bring benefits and investment from business.

NSW announces massive transport infrastructure budget

The $28bn is over 4 years.

I think you missed my point - thats its possible, feasible and desirable to invest in infrastructre you dont own. Your patronizing comments on "spare cash" are not correct and your comments on market share ignore (as they always have) east west volumes.

Oh well, moving on.

It doesn't matter if it is possible. My comments are not meant to be patronising they are explaining reality of cost in Australian dollars. What might cost 100 million Euro over there will cost multiple times that in Australian dollars. As an example the Type 26 frigate that the UK and Australia are building is going to cost 8 billion pounds for the 8 UK versions and $35 billion for the 9 Australian ships.

Australia does not work like the rest of the world. What you might think is reasonable in europe just isn't going to happen in Australia. The NSW Government has it's own responsibilities to be worrying about and isn't going to be funding something like this. This is where the feds need to be standing up and putting all the money in. This is what the ARTC is supposed to be doing but isn't.

The reason why toll roads are getting built is because private companies like transurban fund large portions of these roads for 50 year tolling rights. There is not 1 single company willing to do this for rail in Australia.

Even east west volumes have been dropping recently from 90% down to about 70%.

Way off topic, but the Australian Versions of the type 26 are really completely different ships that share a platform. The Aussie ones will displace far more, have totally different sensor suites, combat systems and weapons systems - no commonality at all in fact. So I dont buy your argument about local costs.

Yes on east-west but your continuous knocking of ARTC ignores this large market share. The recent reductions are mainly due to new competition from foreign ships doing local runs for "petrol money" If they were as bad as you say they are everywhere it would not be at 70% market share. You need to temper your arguments a bit.

Arctic the type 26 and hunter are not completely different ships at all. There are differences but not in any significant way to make it nearly twice the cost. I was forgetting that the type 26 was listed at 8 billion pounds on wikipedia and not dollars. When fully loaded the RN T26's will be hitting 8000+tonnes. This will mean the kiwi's will not be buying the hunters to replace their anzacs. Too big, too crew heavy and too expensive. Expect them to go for a modern corvette in the 2-4,000t range instead.

Anyway things are just more expensive here and projects get severely mismanaged whether it is ships, trains, cars, computer parts or houses. It is the Australia tax.

Arctic the type 26 and hunter are not completely different ships at all. There are differences but not in any significant way to make it nearly twice the cost. I was forgetting that the type 26 was listed at 8 billion pounds on wikipedia and not dollars. When fully loaded the RN T26's will be hitting 8000+tonnes. This will mean the kiwi's will not be buying the hunters to replace their anzacs. Too big, too crew heavy and too expensive. Expect them to go for a modern corvette in the 2-4,000t range instead.

Anyway things are just more expensive here and projects get severely mismanaged whether it is ships, trains, cars, computer parts or houses. It is the Australia tax.

In EVERY combat related system they are totally different, similarites are propulsion and maybe the hull. Thats it.

Yellow highlights are the different bits. From Wiki but verified by Navy source.

But look at the main things in white that are the same which is the basics of the ship. Aside from the communications mast there is no difference in the ships except in the fit out. The Australian mast is probably what will make up most of the weight difference and this is because the CEAFAR 2 is a fully active phased array radar system vs the RN and RCAN versions.

Everything you posted in yellow has nothing to do with the ship design and are only weapon and electronic differences between the nations. The vertical launch systems while different fit in exactly the same area of the ship. Both ships have 32 VLS silo's while the hunter has 8 extra cannisters for land based missiles but these just sit on the deck and do not require a ship redesign.

The bits that are the same are the cheap bits.