Swerv-o

I assumed he meant Bendigo Melbourne and Ballarat Melbourne, rather than Bendigo Ballarat?


S

Beoz

Ah ... makes sense

DC10

Couldn't agree more. And even 1.5 hours is optimistic for anything approaching peak hours.

One thing people would have to get used to is higher fares to support the improved infrastructure. Not sure that would happen in a hurry given the way everyone expects summut for nought these days. A season ticket between Bendigo or Ballarat into Melb works out at $70 a week - less than a quarter of what it'd cost for that distance in the UK

Beoz

Uk train fares are a joke. There should be some happy medium between the 2. I'm sure people could swallow a $120 weekly between Bendigo and Melbourne if it was a 45min journey. Fuel would cost more.

Beoz

Here is a good one.

15 years ago:
Hornsby to Central via North Shore = 43 min
Sydney Terminal to Newcastle (varies depending on stopping pattern, but let's take the Newcastle Flyer) : 2 hrs 22 min

Today:
Hornsby to Central via North Shore = 51 min
Sydney Terminal to Newcastle (Newcastle Flyer) : 2 hrs 35 min

And they call it the "Flyer"

Swerv-o

That's progress, right there...


S

Swerv-o

Though if they did do anything about it, they would no doubt find the hardest, longest and least cost effective method of doing it...


S

GarryP

Oh, BTW, the cost and revenue opportunity structures between medium speed and high speed rail don't scale proportionately (shouldn't really think they did).

For instance if the journey only takes half the time, then that's half the manpower costs and potentially twice the utilisation of the train (and thus revenue).

Building a viaduct for high speed is not more expensive than medium speed.

As such, if you crunch the numbers, you often find that a speed between 250 and 300kmh offer the best balance for a new line. If you upgrading then aiming at 220kmh is attractive on a cost basis.

Obviously it depends on precise circumstances, and slow speeds in cities hurts, but with, say, Ballarat to Melbourne (114km) a 220kmh service most of the way would yield a journey time not much over 30 mins. For Melbourne to Sydney (~1000km) it would turn a 12 hour all day journey into a 4.5h afternoon one (and thus potentially allow it to do two such trips in place of one, doubling revenue).

Amazulu

You're right to mention that a 200mph Shinkansen is basically unfeasible for anywhere in Australia - we just don't have the population density. The country that resembles us most, Canada, also has no high-speed rail

Japan's system is insanely good but they have 130m people in a few small islands and setting it up has basically bankrupted them. Nearly everywhere that HSR operates it is heavily subsidised and tickets are usually expensive

Something between HSR and what we have now is a somewhat more realistic option

JoeBloggs80

Sounds great.

I can safely assume you'd all be willing to pay more tax to see it happen? I would.

Beoz

You just do what they do in NSW. Make mega amounts of money off stamp duty to fund it. Already being done.

Unfortunately because of the poor legacy left by previous Labor governments in NSW, namely Bob Carr as we mentioned earlier, they are fixing Sydney now, which in essence needs to be the short term priority. Its great. Building automation is creating a tonne of jobs. Once built these driverless trains and new lines will need tonnes of maintenance - more jobs.

Down the line they will have to expand out to the regional cities. First things first.

Amazulu

I'll assume that because you are too lazy to use the quote system (or have an agenda) you are referring to me

Yes, using taxes to pay for infrastructure is what they are intended for. So slash welfare and cull civil servant numbers and spend the money on tax cuts and rail instead

JoeBloggs80

I was referring to everyone, hence the use of the word "all". Don't be so paranoid

Good to hear though.

ozzieeagle

Personally I'm worried that people maybe underestimating the effect driverless vehicles will have on public and private transport in the future.... within 30 years by the looks.

Maybe we should concentrate on roads after all. I cant believe that I'm saying this.... Why not build roads with a very safe superfast lane/s seeing as vehicles are supposedly going to be far safer, more capable, potentially faster and less prone to accidents in the future ?

Beoz

Australia would have to rip up and rebuild every road to accomdate "super fast". They just aren't built for it.