General Train Discussion

[UP4014]

So a week or so ago I experienced the Amtrak Cascades from Vancouver, BC to Seattle, WA. While the scenery was rather nice, the train itself (in business class) was nothing special. The Europeans put the yanks to shame on the train front. The 6am departure didn't do the experience any favours. I think I'd prefer to fly next time.

Sorry to say; The Cascades is a Spanish Talgo train. I would much prefer an Amtrak American built Superliner lounge car over the Talgo.

Matt

 

[UP4014]

High speed trains are so 2000's. The next big thing will be the Hyperloop: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop

Have a look at this Atmospheric Railway - Isambard Kingdom Brunel if you're into such things.

Matt

 

[Boca68]

Have a look at this Atmospheric Railway - Isambard Kingdom Brunel if you're into such things.

Matt

Oh, I think these numbers are what we need for the High Speed Rail link

The accounts of the SDR for 1848 suggest that the atmospheric traction cost 3s 1d per mile (£0.10/km), compared to 1s 4d (£0.04/km) for conventional steam power

 

[SFSC]

Costs are not the only thing that has blown out on railways over the years :shock:

 

[Isochronous]

It must be election time if this is being discussed again!

 

[harvyk]

If it is so important to the country, then all of the population should bear the burden. Value capturing is rubbish, and is simply a selective tax. How would you feel about contributing $50,000 or more because someone says your house value might go up..,and by the way, pay up now.

As you like it so much, I expect your cheque is already written.

In some ways disagree, here in CBR we're about to get a light rail system which will in it's early stages be only really usable to a very select group of people (CBR typically has it's darling suburbs which get all the infrastructure, with the rest missing out). However despite the fact that the light rail system even in it's completed state will be absolutely no use to me as it will not go anywhere near my house, I will be expected to pay for "my share" through my taxes.

If I was to move into an area which can feasibly use the light rail network, I would no doubt pay extra for the privilege of being close to a light rail station. So in some ways I am being double dipped, I am paying through higher taxes for infrastructure that I just can't use, and if I was to move into a suburb where I could use the infrastructure I would pay more to purchase said house because it is near the infrastructure in question.

(It should be noted that this has been the general complaint of us southsiders towards the light rail proposal full stop, we're paying for it despite it only really being useful for northsiders)

 

[Himeno]

In some ways disagree, here in CBR we're about to get a light rail system which will in it's early stages be only really usable to a very select group of people (CBR typically has it's darling suburbs which get all the infrastructure, with the rest missing out). However despite the fact that the light rail system even in it's completed state will be absolutely no use to me as it will not go anywhere near my house, I will be expected to pay for "my share" through my taxes.

If I was to move into an area which can feasibly use the light rail network, I would no doubt pay extra for the privilege of being close to a light rail station. So in some ways I am being double dipped, I am paying through higher taxes for infrastructure that I just can't use, and if I was to move into a suburb where I could use the infrastructure I would pay more to purchase said house because it is near the infrastructure in question.

(It should be noted that this has been the general complaint of us southsiders towards the light rail proposal full stop, we're paying for it despite it only really being useful for northsiders)

This light rail plan is silly. They shouldn't be putting it where they are. The light rail should be used to replace the current 300/900 series intertown buses, then the displaced buses can be used to improve other pubic transport routes.

 

[harvyk]

This light rail plan is silly. They shouldn't be putting it where they are. The light rail should be used to replace the current 300/900 series intertown buses, then the displaced buses can be used to improve other pubic transport routes.

Agreed 100%, and for that route I wouldn't be too fazed in paying a share even if I was to seldom (or never) use it.

 

[Jmrocky]

We have many hindrances: the CFMEU, unbelievably high building costs in the unionised larger commercial (and industrial) sectors, incredibly detailed, burdensome and bureaucratic planning, environmental, native title and noise emissions requirements and multiple layers of governments.

A bit selective here. Take Germany for example. Strong union movement (particularly metal workers and rail), 5 levels of government (including EU), some of the highest environmental regulations in the world yet they can continue to build upon their network. Likewise in France. The difference is the public and governments understand the necessity of rail infrastructure and commit to it.

Many many other issues come in to play (and the NBN a prime example of how it could play out if not managed properly).

 

[dajop]

A bit selective here. Take Germany for example. Strong union movement (particularly metal workers and rail), 5 levels of government (including EU), some of the highest environmental regulations in the world yet they can continue to build upon their network. Likewise in France. The difference is the public and governments understand the necessity of rail infrastructure and commit to it.

All well and good, but another significant difference is that Germany has almost 3.5x the population and 3.5x the GNP of Australia in an area less than half that of NSW. Difficult to compare apples to oranges.

 

[harvyk]

All well and good, but another significant difference is that Germany has almost 3.5x the population and 3.5x the GNP of Australia in an area less than half that of NSW. Difficult to compare apples to oranges.

Agreed 100%!


[General Rant]
As I keep saying, show me a country with a similar level of wealth, with similar distances between their major population centers, with similar sized and populated cities, whom have installed high speed rail.

Australia is pretty unique in it's make up, we've very sparsely populated, with massive distances between any sort of built up area's. Even along the south east corridor we have very few area's with even medium sized populations.

Compare that to Europe, or Asian countries where there are massive amounts of people, squeezed into spaces, which are smaller than some of our smallest states. The country which could be considered the closest in make up compared to Australia is Canada, it's only slightly larger, it's got harsh conditions, and it's population isn't too much larger than Australia, and yet they themselves don't have HSR.

If you want to put forwards a convincing business case about the merits of HSR in Australia, you can not reference any other country or situation. Pretend that HSR did not already exist and put your arguments forwards in that mind set.
[/General Rant]

 

[medhead]

The business case has already been linked in thread.

The uniqueness of Australia is precisely why a unique targetted solution is required. No one has suggested HSR across the nullabor. That won't work, but they have suggested HSR in areas were it could work. The demographics of Australia would change with HSR as that would make medium sized cities more viable rather than the 2 massive cities we have now.

I'm also not sure about this line of piecemeal dismissal of the concept of HSR:
Anti "HSR can't work because of the strong unions."
"Actually it works in germany with strong unions"
Anti "You can't compare with Germany because of population demographics."

In what way is population demographics relevant to the strong unions issue?

If you want to keep up this debate how about an argument that considers the whole picture, not piecemeal circular anti rhetoric. Change is hard, big vision is difficult. Especially, when there is selective nitpicking. Lets start by reading the report that considers everything, together.

 

[clifford]

This light rail plan is silly. They shouldn't be putting it where they are. The light rail should be used to replace the current 300/900 series intertown buses, then the displaced buses can be used to improve other pubic transport routes.

Then let's hope the voters of the ACT who don't live near the centre of Gungahlin vote accordingly. As someone who lives on the northside (but not in Gungahlin) I am appalled at how this ideological nightmare is being rushed through.

 

[UP4014]

If you want to keep up this debate how about an argument that considers the whole picture, not piecemeal circular anti rhetoric. Change is hard, big vision is difficult. Especially, when there is selective nitpicking. Lets start by reading the report that considers everything, together.

The first report was 30 years ago, and we're still not past the report stage. NSW Lib Duncan Gay Minister for Raods, Maritime and Freight said this very day today in Sydney this morning: "is there any media here, no; good, forget high speed rail"

 

[UP4014]

Then let's hope the voters of the ACT who don't live near the centre of Gungahlin vote accordingly. As someone who lives on the northside (but not in Gungahlin) I am appalled at how this ideological nightmare is being rushed through.

I wouldn't say it was rushed, I was involved around 5 years ago with toss ideas around the route and how to get the most track down for the best bang for your buck. But that's all changed and I'm not sure who it suits now.

Original idea: Gungahlin to Civic, then south over the bridge to Tuggers. With a line off form Civic to the airport and back over the lake along the front of the Galleries and Questacon to the National Library connecting into the south line to return to the city or go south. Then spread the bus tenticles out to cover more residential areas away form the tram line.

The trams themselves: different ideas such as over head power collection with batteries like a hybrid, so not all trackage needed over head wire and the trams could run on batteries at the route extremities into the residential streets. Another idea was the under ground power pick up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply which isn't without it's problems and is expensive.

 

[coco50]

All well and good, but another significant difference is that Germany has almost 3.5x the population and 3.5x the GNP of Australia in an area less than half that of NSW. Difficult to compare apples to oranges.

Populations: Germany, 81 million; France, 66 million; Italy, 61 million; Spain, 46 million. These countries have an area of 1,214,000 sq.km. NSW and Victoria have an area of 1,027,000 sq km. These two states have a population of 13.5 million. That's why trains work in Europe but will never work (ie be profitable in passenger rail terms) in Australia any time soon.

 

[Franky]

Populations: Germany, 81 million; France, 66 million; Italy, 61 million; Spain, 46 million. These countries have an area of 1,214,000 sq.km. NSW and Victoria have an area of 1,027,000 sq km. These two states have a population of 13.5 million. That's why trains work in Europe but will never work (ie be profitable in passenger rail terms) in Australia any time soon.

That can't be more simply put. It's often said that we suffer the tyranny of distance, and bugger all population, compared to elsewhere. Its the same in respect of other things like national power grids, and a national system of roads and highways.

 

[dajop]

Populations: Germany, 81 million; France, 66 million; Italy, 61 million; Spain, 46 million. These countries have an area of 1,214,000 sq.km. NSW and Victoria have an area of 1,027,000 sq km. These two states have a population of 13.5 million. That's why trains work in Europe but will never work (ie be profitable in passenger rail terms) in Australia any time soon.

Probably the most accurate area we are talking abouit is 240,000 sq km (300km x 800km) that takes in Geelong-Newcastle, with a combined population of around 10-11 million. Still quite low popuilation density compared to Germany and most of Europe. Even England (130,000 sq km, population 53 m) struggles with getting HSR supported and working.

 

[wandering_fred]

Populations: Germany, 81 million; France, 66 million; Italy, 61 million; Spain, 46 million. These countries have an area of 1,214,000 sq.km. NSW and Victoria have an area of 1,027,000 sq km. These two states have a population of 13.5 million. That's why trains work in Europe but will never work (ie be profitable in passenger rail terms) in Australia any time soon.

If SYD-MEL and SYD-BNE weren't being flown more than half hourly (consider all airlines) I might agree with you...

I took the train Madrid Toledo - likely about the same distance as Sydney New Castle. Keep the end options open for further extensions and it might be a place to start. And 200 km/hr might b fast enough.

Happy wandering

Fred

 

[harvyk]

That can't be more simply put. It's often said that we suffer the tyranny of distance, and bugger all population, compared to elsewhere. Its the same in respect of other things like national power grids, and a national system of roads and highways.

We've had nation building projects in the past, so I'm not against the idea of building a HSR or any other piece of national infrastructure, but it can't be modeled on an overseas concept, it would need to be justified based on Australia's own needs and shortcomings, combined with how exactly HSR will fix it.

So far all the arguments I've heard have been basically HSR being a solution searching for a problem. The arguments for all point to successful installations in other countries completely forgetting those countries are tiny in comparison, with extremely large populations. It's not like we don't already have a variety of cheap means to travel between the various capital cities very quickly, and with very few exceptions, our regional centers are spread out and have very low populations which would miss out on any benefit of a HSR system since it would only be really usable to people in a very narrow corridor.