Greens call for a high speed rail link (1 Viewer)

[FlipX]

Greens call for a High Speed Rail Link | The Australian Greens

Thoughts?

I personally reckon that a Maglev-style link between Brissie-Adelaide that stops via major centres like Newcastle and Wollongong would be exactly what a growing population needs.

But uh, does anyone here know a bit more about the feasibility of these things?

And can anyone explain why rail travel is so expensive compared to aviation? I would've thought that flying would be way more fuel-intensive --> costly.

I would Google, but y'know...effort...

 

[Optimus Prime]

aeroplanes go through the air at high altitude=less resistance and don't weigh that much for the number of people they carry.

for example, a 767 weighs about 80 tonnes, a single Millenium train carriage is 45.

 

[kaz1]

aeroplanes go through the air at high altitude=less resistance and don't weigh that much for the number of people they carry.

They also produce more greenhouse emissions than trains which is probably why the Greens want a train.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

It is not, not, NOT cost effective to build high speed rail in a sparsely populated country like Australia.

google.com can provide many studies on this.

But think about it logically, plane tickets on busy domestic routes like Sydney-Melbourne only cost around $50 - $100 each way. Based on prices in Europe and Japan, high speed rail would have to cost at least this much if not more, and even with the latest Maglev technology its not as fast over distances as great as Sydney-Melbourne. So why would anyone choose the train unless its subsidized?

 

[Richard Gilmore]

aeroplanes go through the air at high altitude=less resistance and don't weigh that much for the number of people they carry.

for example, a 767 weighs about 80 tonnes, a single Millenium train carriage is 45.

A 767 carries about 200 peoples, a Millennium train carries 1000
And I might be wrong (fairly certain I'm not), but aren't trains the most fuel efficient form of transport?

It is not, not, NOT cost effective to build high speed rail in a sparsely populated country like Australia

as opposed to what though?

But think about it logically, plane tickets on busy domestic routes like Sydney-Melbourne only cost around $50 - $100 each way. Based on prices in Europe and Japan, high speed rail would have to cost at least this much if not more, and even with the latest Maglev technology its not as fast over distances as great as Sydney-Melbourne. So why would anyone choose the train unless its subsidized?

maglev isnt the only high speed train technology.

 

[NewiJapper]

If you use magnetics to power the train it is OBVIOUSLY MUCH MORE fuel effecient...

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

as opposed to what though?

Air transport, which is currently cheap and efficient.

 

[murphyad]

Air transport, which is currently cheap and efficient.

OK I've been to Europe and Japan and can say the following about high-speed rail:

• It's relatively cheap to ride
• In some cases, it's actually quicker than air travel, due to:
• Convenience. You rock up at the station, a train arrives shortly after, and you get on. No check-ins or anything like that.
• You get to watch the scenery as you fly by.
• There is far more space available than domestic airline Cattle Class, and the trip is far quieter and more relaxing.
• When food is available, it will rape airline food quality-wise.
• No baggage restrictions apart from what you can physically carry around.
• No annoying safety demonstrations.

I am all for increased investment in high-speed rail in this country.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

OK I've been to Europe and Japan and can say the following about high-speed rail:

• It's relatively cheap to ride
• In some cases, it's actually quicker than air travel, due to:
• Convenience. You rock up at the station, a train arrives shortly after, and you get on. No check-ins or anything like that.
• You get to watch the scenery as you fly by.
• There is far more space available than domestic airline Cattle Class, and the trip is far quieter and more relaxing.
• When food is available, it will rape airline food quality-wise.
• No baggage restrictions apart from what you can physically carry around.

I am all for increased investment in high-speed rail (HSR) in this country.

Hmmm except the population density of Europe is 112 people per km2 (much higher in most of the areas where high speed rail is actually used).

In Japan its 337 per km2. In Australia its 3.

You are right that HSR may be faster over certain distances, but Sydney-Melbourne is not one of them. At a distance of around 900km, even with the highest average speeds currently available thats going to be at least a 3 hour trip.

Speed of journey is the main consideration here for most people on this route (overwhelmingly business travelers), crappy food and lack of space isn't a huge issue when the whole flight only takes an hour.

 

[murphyad]

Hmmm except the population density of Europe is 112 people per km2 (much higher in most of the areas where high speed rail is actually used).

In Japan its 337 per km2. In Australia its 3.

Making use of aggregate population density is not really valid considering that HSR is only really being considered for travel between major population centres as you yourself attest. Population density is a figure influenced by environmental conditions, land area, the actual size of cities themselves and doesn't really tell us a lot about the feasibility of the actual proposal being considered.

In Europe, the Eurostar is used on the London-Paris route. The fact that, most of the way, the train passes through farmland of low population density is a fact neither here nor there.

You are right that HSR may be faster over certain distances, but Sydney-Melbourne is not one of them. At a distance of around 900km, even with the highest average speeds currently available thats going to be at least a 3 hour trip.

Speed of journey is the main consideration here for most people on this route (overwhelmingly business travelers), crappy food and lack of space isn't a huge issue when the whole flight only takes an hour.

I am in agreement with you that HSR would indeed be slower over these distances and that this is the main concern of those traveling by air but I would say the following:

• It may be useful to consider also those who go up and down the NSW-Victoria coast by car; and
• It is possible to include midway stops in places like Goulburn or otherwise on the NSW South Coast for people intending only to travel to those destinations which if positioned properly, may even be of use to those heading to the snow.

These points came off the top of my head; I have done no research so if this has already been covered somewhere that's fine, but if not I think they are worth thinking about.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Making use of aggregate population density is not really valid considering that HSR is only really being considered for travel between major population centres as you yourself attest. Population density is a figure influenced by environmental conditions, land area, the actual size of cities themselves and doesn't really tell us a lot about the feasibility of the actual proposal being considered.

You are such a cunt to argue with. Sure pop density is higher on the east coast of Australia, just like its higher on Honshu between Tokyo and Osaka. There is still a huge disparity in population density and you know it.

In Europe, the Eurostar is used on the London-Paris route. The fact that, most of the way, the train passes through farmland of low population density is a fact neither here nor there.

London and Paris each have a population of over 10 million and are only 340km apart compared to around 4 million each for Sydney and Melbourne with a distance of 900km.

 

[murphyad]

You are such a cunt to argue with. Sure pop density is higher on the east coast of Australia, just like its higher on Honshu between Tokyo and Osaka. There is still a huge disparity in population density and you know it.

Oh but wow - that would explain why there are Shinkansen all over the country, wouldn't it! Of course there's a huge disparity in pop density - I'm not arguing that - but that's irrelevant as long as we're not planning an HSR link through the Simpson Desert, which is the sort of region that causes the huge disparity in the first place.

London and Paris each have a population of over 10 million and are only 340km apart compared to around 4 million each for Sydney and Melbourne with a distance of 900km.

Firstly, your facts are wrong, because London's population is less than 8 million (Paris's is just over 10) and they are 495 km apart by train.

The fact remains that population density in itself does not torpedo HSR prospects. Smaller trains, smaller fleets and less stops than equivalent European systems are all potential ways to make up for a reduced number of people using the system in terms of saving costs. User demographics are a far more important point and I notice you made no attempt to address those users who would otherwise have intended to go by car. One other point - what about jet-fuel prices?

 

[Davie1]

Would be nice to have a hsr, although the success of it depends on design, implementation, maintenance, operation and funding. Operational smoothness is often more indicative of organizational discipline than technological prowess. Could we really count on the government not to screw it up?

If it did all work out and a connection between brisbane via sydney via(CANBERRA and snowfields maybe?) to melbourne would be sweet. I could see myself using it.

 

[Richard Gilmore]

Now I'm not some fancy big city lawyer, but it seems to me that it is absurdly more efficient to run any form of transport with less stops rather than more stops because it wastes less momentum. I don't see the issue therefore in the run from Sydney to Melbourne.

Trains carry more people and use far, far less fuel than do planes. Plus they're less dangerous. And they're more convinient!

So if high speed trains (not maglev) are cheaper to run than planes (and if the industry was to expand and the government gave them subsidies [airlines get subsidies right?]) then it seems to me to be the way to go.

?

 

[aussie-boy]

So much misinformation in this thread.

*Syd-Mel rail corridor = 750-800km/h. HSR av. speed = 250-315km/h.
Therefore, total trip time = 2:25-3:15.
For new lines, line speed = 350km/h... there's no limit really, max speed related to curve radius, tilt of the tracks in curves and how often you're willing to replace the overhead wiring

*SYD<->MEL = 1.56million pax p.a. ... translates to 7 express trains/day, each at 75% capacity

*Major towns cities along route, poised to grow: Wangaratta, Albury, Wagga, Canberra, Goulburn, Southern Highlands, Campbelltown

*Major airports: SYD, MEL, CBR.
-CBR is in the middle of a multi-billion $ expansion, with 2 brand new terminals: with HSR will be able to function as a low cost international hub for Sydney
-SYD is almost at capacity as well, replacing many domestic flights with HSR will fix this instantly

*Qantas has offered to provide services to HSR - all contracts with Qantas, as well as FF benefits & points would be available on the trains

*HSR travel is much more fuel efficient than air travel

*RE cost - leisure fares will cost more than budget airlines. But business fares (where airlines make their money) will remain much the same. An ETS should see leisure travellers choosing rail too.

*Other benefits:
-Will encourage businesses to relocate to regional areas, while still being within 1-2hrs of Syd or Melb
-Will remove passenger travel from existing lines, leading to much a more efficient and reliable freight rail system. Will complement nicely the $1bn being spent on improving freight facilities and alignments right now.

*Total cost = $18.75bn - $36bn

 

[Kwayera]

If it did all work out and a connection between brisbane via sydney via(cambera and snowfeilds maybe?) to melbourne would be sweet. I could see myself using it.

"Cambera"? Seriously?

 

[Richard Gilmore]

zionism? really?

 

[Davie1]

"Cambera"? Seriously?

I see you are a bit of an English Nazi... Although granted i did spell CANBERRA incorrectly.

 

[badquinton304]

"Cambera"? Seriously?

Yeah I know lol, I had no idea what he was talking about.

 

[Optimus Prime]

A 767 carries about 200 peoples, a Millennium train carries 1000
And I might be wrong (fairly certain I'm not), but aren't trains the most fuel efficient form of transport?



as opposed to what though?



maglev isnt the only high speed train technology.

Highspeed trains use more energy (obviously) than normal ones. I said a millenium train carriage, which only holds maybe 125 people each. It was just an example for why aircraft can be cost effective.

The thing is would you rather an at best 3-3.5 hr trip (including stops), or a 1-1.5 hour flight? Considering at the moment an airfare between Sydney and Melbourne can be had for around $50, until there is a carbon tax or the cost of Aviation fuel increases significantly I'm pretty sure most people will choose to fly.