Kevin Rudd keeps high-speed rail hope aliveKEVIN Rudd has sought to re-energise his election campaign today by announcing a fresh Labor commitment to a high-speed rail line along Australia's east coast.

The move follows the completion of a $20 million feasibility study, promised by Labor at the last election, which found a high-speed rail link between Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne would cost $114 billion and take 45 years to complete.



Mr Rudd today unveiled the next step in Labor's preparations for the project, talking up the capacity of the project to drive jobs creation.



However, it was understood the Prime Minister was to stop short of making any definitive commitment to go ahead with what Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese called a “monumental endeavour”.



Mr Albanese tweeted earlier this morning: "Releasing High Speed Rail Advisory Group Report today shows a return of $2-10 for every $1 invested on Sydney-Melbourne."

View the full story

Really a long term thinker isn't he?

Abbott focus on roads, not high-speed rail
TONY Abbott says a coalition government will focus on road projects that can be started in its first term of office, rather than a high-speed rail project that would take decades.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is expected to announce $52 million in funding to begin the process of buying land for a high-speed rail corridor connecting Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne.
Asked if he supported the move, the opposition leader said: "I'd much rather spend money now to get better outcomes tomorrow, rather than in 40 years' time".
A coalition government has committed to building or upgrading a range of roads across the country, including WestConnex in Sydney and the East West Link in Melbourne.
"All of these will be substantially underway within the first term of a coalition government," Mr Abbott told reporters in Brisbane.
The Australian Greens say the government's move is too little too late.
Greens leader Christine Milne said her party had committed $664 million over four years to fast-track the project, and would establish a new High Speed Rail Authority.
"If the ALP had been as forward thinking as the Greens we could already be well on track to having high speed rail in Australia," Senator Milne said in a statement.


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/abbott-focus-on-roads-not-high-speed-rail/story-e6frfku9-1226704126754#ixzz2d2SBkOQ2

Abbott focus on roads, not high-speed railTONY Abbott says a coalition government will focus on road projects that can be started in its first term of office, rather than a high-speed rail project that would take decades.
Seriously, Tony Abbott is the true 1950's man.

No imagination or any idea or forward thinking that the tables are turning towards rail and certainly have turned in many countries when it comes to the economical mass movement of people.

If there is an Abbott administration after September 5, we may as well turn out the lights and hibernate with the ultimate loss of jobs, the investment in the roads sector, the inevitable recession due to the mass lay-offs of government workers, it will be a very sad time for AU.

The people get the governments they deserve.

Mike

The High Speed Rail is expected to take about 45 years to complete.

Here, try this:



Proudly posted from Sydney Airport Terminal 3 - Qantas Domestic

I think you'll find the Australian Bullet train party - or whatever its' called - might be looking like getting a final senate seat somewhere according to "internal part polling".

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is expected to announce $52 million in funding to begin the process of buying land for a high-speed rail corridor connecting Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne.
this is an excellent idea. maybe keep the houses and whatever in on the land and make some money from renting it out to the current owner of the land.
@Watson374
agreed. lets just build a second airport alerady. HSR is going to outdated by the time we get around to finishing it. Maglev is the future and of couse whatever new plane Boeing creates (Y1 and Y3) of its yellowstone project.

Here is the link to the story on the Australian news website:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/kevin-rudd-keeps-high-speed-rail-hope-alive/story-fn9qr68y-1226703995476

Would the HSR share anything with the Mel-Bris Inland Railway?

Would the HSR share anything with the Mel-Bris Inland Railway?

No.

Here, try this:

Proudly posted from Sydney Airport Terminal 3 - Qantas Domestic

A bit difficult when Sydney airport is almost at maximum capacity.......but we have been down this track before haven't we

So let's not start here.

Mike.

HSR is going to outdated by the time we get around to finishing it. Maglev is the future and of couse whatever new plane Boeing creates (Y1 and Y3) of its yellowstone project.

Then why have Germany ditched the MAGLEV idea and Chinese not expanded? It was a costly fad.

I also like how the quote the full figure for the Melbourne-Brisbane HSR instead of the Sydney-Melbourne HSR total costs, which are roughly half of the $114 billion dollars.

Then why have Germany ditched the MAGLEV idea and Chinese not expanded? It was a costly fad.

First of all Germany has a perfectly capable ICE System and have no plans to replace it. Cost may have played a part here i will admit that.
Secondly in China people were scared about potential radiation and the health hazzards it brings and building it entirely underground (to reduce effects of radiation) would have put the costs way up making it unfeasible. A Maglev built on the ground would have got funding.
Thirdly may I bring you to attention the Chuo Shinkansen set to finish in 2045 (roughly the same time as the Aust HSR if it was to be built). This is the future of rail transport. JR Central is funding it entirely and cost is no barrier to them.

Maglev may be costly now but in the future it is a replacement for current technology. There may need to be more scientific work done on superconductors (finding a room temperature one would be nice) Once these problems are solved and mass prodcution has started costs will come down.

And just how many times is Labor going to bring this "never-to-be-built" VFT/HSL in a failed attempt to get votes, and to get the poll results off the news?

How many times is it now during this election campaign? IF ANY government was serious, they would have built it about 20 to 30 years ago - just AFTER they got elected.

But the Liberals did the same political stunt, with their SpeedRail version of a VFT, to try and get votes.

A bit difficult when Sydney airport is almost at maximum capacity.......but we have been down this track before haven't we

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. I can buy a second airport negating the need for HSR; I cannot buy HSR negating the need for a second airport. Given that the former is expected to cost about ten billion and solve the problem, and that the latter is expected to cost ten times the former and not solve the problem, I find it impossible to understand why otherwise rational members cling on to this insane scheme of the latter.

While we know K Rudd has only done this in an attempt to try and get heaps more votes & to keep bad polls off the news, isn't his VFT on the wrong path? He has it mostly on the current Brisbane to Melbourne rail route, with a few exceptions. But Labor has Canberra on a VFT "branch" line, instead of going via Canberra.

... isn't his VFT on the wrong path? He has it mostly on the current Brisbane to Melbourne rail route, with a few exceptions. But Labor has Canberra on a VFT "branch" line, instead of going via Canberra.

The majority of people travelling on the service would be travelling between Sydney and Melbourne.  They don't need or want to go via Canberra.  Going via Canberra makes the journey longer for the majority, costs more to build and will piss more ACT residents off by having a heap of non-stop trains cruising through their suburbia at 350 km per hour.

While we know K Rudd has only done this in an attempt to try and get heaps more votes & to keep bad polls off the news, isn't his VFT on the wrong path? He has it mostly on the current Brisbane to Melbourne rail route, with a few exceptions. But Labor has Canberra on a VFT "branch" line, instead of going via Canberra.

Does anyone think there are substantial votes in HSR unless the Murdoch media backs it.

That would be news of the world. Rosebud

Probably most High Speed enthusiasts will quote the example of Paris-Lyon in France as an eminent example of high spped rail success. Now have a look a bit more closely at the distance and population figures. Paris -Lyon is about 440km or about the same distance as Sydney to Wagga-Wagga. The population of Lyon is currently about 750 000.

With that distance and population, it is little wonder that aviation found it hard to compete with HSR. But I do find it bemusing in these Australian proposals that there seems to be an undercurrent of "let's get people out of planes and onto trains" without very much of good reason why. Somehow it seems that aviation is being demonized. Sydney-Melbourne appears to be a much greater distance for a high speed competition and the advantages of HSR are really what?

Agreed. From the enthusiast point of view, it's trains rather than planes, and that suits the gunzel mindset. Unfortunately, I'm also a bus nut and an avgeek, so I don't wear those glasses. (I do, however, wear glasses; alas, I digress...)

From the political point of view, it essentially plays the perception that flying is not fun, that it's a pain to be endured. (Especially among those who scrounge for the cheapest fare and end up at the terminal at 0530 to check-in into a non-reclining seat next to the lavatory on a low-cost carrier flight only to be delayed by half a day.) Avgeek though I may be, I recognise that for many people taking a flight is plain torture (pun intended). By pushing the idea of a "faster, more streamlined" journey on high-speed rail, the public sucks up the idea of a "new era in intercapital travel". As such, it's a look-good/feel-good project that turns on the voters.

The advantages on the SYD-MEL, SYD-BNE routes are almost nil - certainly not worth the irrecoverable capex. SYD-CBR isn't really worth pursuing in a true high-speed fashion; I've said it before, but I'll say it again: the market for the SYD-CBR train to chase consists of those who take the coach and those who drive, and to do this you only need to cut travel time down to two hours plus, a much cheaper task.

It is the Sydney -Melbourne freight railway (on 100 year old alignments suited to the technology of that day) that desperately needs attention including curve easing to be anything like a useful contributor to society. Maybe it will disappear down the mudholes first....

Agreed.

The advantages on the SYD-MEL, SYD-BNE routes are almost nil - certainly not worth the irrecoverable capex. SYD-CBR isn't really worth pursuing in a true high-speed fashion; I've said it before, but I'll say it again: the market for the SYD-CBR train to chase consists of those who take the coach and those who drive, and to do this you only need to cut travel time down to two hours plus, a much cheaper task.

As well as Air PAX using the new Winton International airport .  Maybe it will be called the "New Canberra Airport".

As well as Air PAX using the new Winton International airport .  Maybe it will be called the "New Canberra Airport".

Qantas returning to its origins?

Qantas returning to its origins?

What, the middle of nowhere?

Here, try this:

Proudly posted from Sydney Airport Terminal 3 - Qantas Domestic

The OP is like crulity to dumb animals. Oh Jeeze we have an election coming, bring out HSR, again!

No Mike, Sydney airport is not near max capacity, currently predicted for another 10-20years. However peak is tight and easilyover come with larger planes. Many of the flights are still 737's or AB equivalent.

No Mike, Sydney airport is not near max capacity, currently predicted for another 10-20years. However peak is tight and easilyover come with larger planes. Many of the flights are still 737's or AB equivalent.

Yes and no. Qantas is currently in a situation where the biggest thing they can run on the Golden Triangle without turnaround blowouts is the B763.

Really, the problems with the current airport are the curfew and the limited terminal capacity. Slot restriction is really only a problem at peak times, but de-peaking is a lot more challenging than it seems.

Still, there is enough time - just - to spend ten billion or so and build a second airport, considering that MH (Malaysia Airlines) has just secured an 0625 arrival slot and an 0850 departure slot, for a new KUL flight starting in November. (For those unfamiliar with the ups and downs of Sydney Airport, morning arrivals and departures around those times constitute the biggest international peak, and it closely overlaps with the morning domestic peak; hence, this slot being awarded to MH's new (third) flight is both remarkable and a sign that the capacity has not run quite dry - yet.)

There is not just bigger model planes to consider, but look at Qantas current 737 fleet then look at whats on the market now with 737-8 and 9 series. Without checking actual numbers, probably 50+ more bodies per plane. Likewise the older 767's.

The main issue for the bigger planes is lack of dual loading and unloading air bridges, but resolve this which I think we will see and with increasing demand elsewhere in Australia, we will see more larger planes used by Qantas and Virgin in the 2020's for domestic usage, other countries can use 747's for 1hr flights due to demand. The A380 on medium haul routes struggles on economics due to bad turn-arounds unless they can load in similar time to the competition planes. Hence why Emirates built a purpose built terminal for A380's at Dubai as Europe-UAE is a popular medium haul route that has tripple airbridge loading capacity. Basically they can load an A380 is same time as a B737.