High speed rail an 'economic game changer' for Wagga, Labor leader Albanese says

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 14 Sep 2020 11:59
  route14 Chief Commissioner

Perhaps dual gauge FLEET might help?  Still can't do it in minus 3 minutes though.

Sponsored advertisement

  justarider Deputy Commissioner

Location: Bored at home
Perhaps dual gauge FLEET might help?  Still can't do it in minus 3 minutes though.
route14
No need to be that drastic.
Completing the duplication of SG between Seymour and SCS would be a good start, even if bits of it (Albion loop) are DG.

BUT the Inland Rail "computer says no".   SCS to Seymour 74 minutes does have some scope to squeeze more.

cheers
John
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Perhaps dual gauge FLEET might help?  Still can't do it in minus 3 minutes though.
"route14"


Too complex for a easier way to solve.
  route14 Chief Commissioner

In my view I thought by the NE standardization they would have duplicated the section beyond Seymour.  There had long been a single SG line there so by leaving it single as it is for most part, they've effectively truncated the BG at Seymour, with V/Line trains taking up capacity on the SG.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Getting in and out of Melbourne takes long enough as well. If an alternative solution was found here that could remove 30 minutes to the trip.
WOT?

40 minutes SCS to Craigieburn, and your gunna chop off 30.

26km in 10 minutes, average 160kph. Wow!

Edit: pre-covid the 14:32 down arrives Craigieburn in 27 minutes. Startrek has now invented a Transporter with time-shift.
justarider
I did say if a new straighter alignment was built. Maybe I was a little bit ambitious by claiming 30 minutes but sometimes the XPT does get caught up and that supposed 40 minutes can turn in to an hour.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Duplicating the single track between Junee and Albury should be high on the list of priorities.  Remember, we're talking about freight as well and with new inter-modal terminals proposed in places like Wagga, there will be increased freight traffic which will benefit with shorter transit times.

It's misguided to base the concept of HSR as a viable competitor with air travel on the longer distance journeys between the State Capitals in the Australian context because of our sparse population density.  It would be more beneficial to focus on improved connectivity from regional centres with their respective State Capitals and that can be achieved with upgrading of existing lines to MSR standard at far less cost and in a much shorter time-frame.  A by-product of this strategy is that it also significantly reduces transit times for inter-state passenger travel, which can potentially lift demand, as well as freight.  If you want to get there faster, then catch a plane.
  KRviator Moderator

Location: Up the front
High Speed Rail? - Do it properly or just don't bother, after all, flying is such a pleasant experience
Lockspike
I am not sure if meant that in jest, but as someone who does fly regularly, both in command and as a passenger, there is not much I dislike more than travelling as a passenger on an airline. Overpriced parking, overpriced train tickets, overpriced everything in the terminal, dealing with the idiots at *cough* "security", waiting at the gate, waiting for pushback, waiting for the other passengers who don't fly regularly to realise they fit more in the lockers if the wheels go to the back instead of sideways, masking the "I've heard this all before" expression when they do the safety brief, waiting for the passenger in front to put their seat back on a short-haul flight if I don't get a bulkhead row, waiting for ATC to slow us down because the system in Australia can't cope with the traffic volumes waiting at baggage claim, waiting for train connections from the airport.

True HSR would virtually eliminate air travel on one of the busiest corridors in the world, Sydney-Melbourne but, like you said, it has to be done completely and done right. That'll never happen in this country.

The other unknown is what business response will be in a post-COVID world. The KRviatrix has got in-principle approval to work almost anywhere in the country if we need to move because of border closures, and anywhere in the state if we relocate permanently. The majority of her staff have been in the office but a couple of times since March, the work gets done, they are happier and, as has been found, will still put in a bit of work even if they're not 100% where that would result in a sickie if they had to report to the office.

If more companies consider the work-from-home routine, do we really need HSR or such a significant air route going forward?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
High Speed Rail? - Do it properly or just don't bother, after all, flying is such a pleasant experience
Lockspike
I am not sure if meant that in jest, but as someone who does fly regularly, both in command and as a passenger, there is not much I dislike more than travelling as a passenger on an airline. Overpriced parking, overpriced train tickets, overpriced everything in the terminal, dealing with the idiots at *cough* "security", waiting at the gate, waiting for pushback, waiting for the other passengers who don't fly regularly to realise they fit more in the lockers if the wheels go to the back instead of sideways, masking the "I've heard this all before" expression when they do the safety brief, waiting for the passenger in front to put their seat back on a short-haul flight if I don't get a bulkhead row, waiting for ATC to slow us down because the system in Australia can't cope with the traffic volumes waiting at baggage claim, waiting for train connections from the airport.

True HSR would virtually eliminate air travel on one of the busiest corridors in the world, Sydney-Melbourne but, like you said, it has to be done completely and done right. That'll never happen in this country.

The other unknown is what business response will be in a post-COVID world. The KRviatrix has got in-principle approval to work almost anywhere in the country if we need to move because of border closures, and anywhere in the state if we relocate permanently. The majority of her staff have been in the office but a couple of times since March, the work gets done, they are happier and, as has been found, will still put in a bit of work even if they're not 100% where that would result in a sickie if they had to report to the office.

If more companies consider the work-from-home routine, do we really need HSR or such a significant air route going forward?
"KRviator"


True, flying is not desirable status we would like to think it is.  But some of the above doesn't go away with a train. Time wise they will be on par with air and the studies to date have said around they might get half the current flyers.

Of course how much would this actually cost?
I believe the study said 20,000 per day or  7mpa was expected users.
Assume $50B in capital, at 5% repayment and interest = $360/ticket. No operating costs included.

A few comparisons why HSR isn't a good idea for Australia despite my train hat saying I'd love it.
- France 3/4 the size of NSW, population 10 x the size
- Paris, #1 tourist destination in the world.
- TGV network is 3000km in length serving multiple cities over 1m people, dozens of towns of less within 500km of Paris, 4th largest in the world
- International routes
- Country link has about 4000 route km, 1/4 of which is to Broken Hill.
- Syd - Mel and Syd - Can are the only two that can be on par (Syd- Mel) or compete directly (Syd - Can) with air.

HSR will at best only serve Mel to BNE via Syd and Can.

Where as MSR will serve more corridors be incrementally upgradable and cost a fraction of the price and improves freight and commuter rail.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Gheringhap Loop Autonomous Zone
Melbourne to Sydney is a highly marginal city-pair for High Speed Rail when it comes to competing with air travel under current economic thinking and practice (aka the pre-COVID Laissez Faire approach to airline regulation). Sydney-Canberra and Sydney-Newcastle are much better - Sydney-Newcastle is a congested rail corridor with virtually no air competition and most consultancy modelling shows that Sydney-Canberra HSR would totally displace SYD-CBR air travel.

But competing with air travel between two major airport cities doesn't need to be the main aim of a fast rail project and indeed focusing on that goal to the exclusion of all others is a great way to kill any hope of making passenger rail between Melbourne and Sydney better in any meaningful way.
Focus on demolishing road travel. If you can run the train frequently (hourly or better) between Melbourne and Sydney with an average travel speed of over 110kph then you win on time alone there - you don't need much more than a frequent and reliable 160-200kph service to achieve that. That also digs into the air travel market at the lower end, because different people value their time differently. Plenty of people are willing to spend more time on a comfortable, reliable train instead of being crammed into a flatulence-filled aluminium sausage hurtling through the sky.

Speaking of valuing time differently: a quality night train service running at a lower speed could also work well for Melbourne-Sydney as part of fast/medium/higher speed rail. Get the journey time down to 5-6 hours and the reliability way up and you'd be onto a winner. Europe has a bit of a night train revival going on, albeit with only a fraction of the market share they once had before the EU let the budget airlines cut sick on them in the 1990s. People who care about their impact on the environment are quite happy to take a slower, overnight journey on an electric night train.

And if you want to make even more people use a marginally slower train, you could always make flying more expensive. Make it pay its way for the damage that it does to the environment.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Melbourne to Sydney is a highly marginal city-pair for High Speed Rail when it comes to competing with air travel under current economic thinking and practice (aka the pre-COVID Laissez Faire approach to airline regulation). Sydney-Canberra and Sydney-Newcastle are much better - Sydney-Newcastle is a congested rail corridor with virtually no air competition and most consultancy modelling shows that Sydney-Canberra HSR would totally displace SYD-CBR air travel.

But competing with air travel between two major airport cities doesn't need to be the main aim of a fast rail project and indeed focusing on that goal to the exclusion of all others is a great way to kill any hope of making passenger rail between Melbourne and Sydney better in any meaningful way.
Focus on demolishing road travel. If you can run the train frequently (hourly or better) between Melbourne and Sydney with an average travel speed of over 110kph then you win on time alone there - you don't need much more than a frequent and reliable 160-200kph service to achieve that. That also digs into the air travel market at the lower end, because different people value their time differently. Plenty of people are willing to spend more time on a comfortable, reliable train instead of being crammed into a flatulence-filled aluminium sausage hurtling through the sky.

Speaking of valuing time differently: a quality night train service running at a lower speed could also work well for Melbourne-Sydney as part of fast/medium/higher speed rail. Get the journey time down to 5-6 hours and the reliability way up and you'd be onto a winner. Europe has a bit of a night train revival going on, albeit with only a fraction of the market share they once had before the EU let the budget airlines cut sick on them in the 1990s. People who care about their impact on the environment are quite happy to take a slower, overnight journey on an electric night train.

And if you want to make even more people use a marginally slower train, you could always make flying more expensive. Make it pay its way for the damage that it does to the environment.
"LancedDendrite"


Generally agree, but do we need HSR to take over Syd-Can air? MSR with an average speed of 120-130km/h, top end speed of 200km/h in long straights on Canberra branch line can do the job in 2.25h, with a service frequency of 1h and you include all those south of Moss Vale as part of the customer base and it becomes a no brainer. You don't even need dual track on CBR branch, but move the terminus to the airport and come straight across from Bundendore.

Would HSR actually achieve much more when you factor in all the stops and starts and slow approach through Sydney burb's?

Likewise the same applies to Newcastle, achieve sub 2h and job is mostly done considering the high cost terrain.

I'm all for dual track Sydb to Mel with a 2hrly frequency from 5am to 7pm, average speed of +120km/h, 6-7h trip duration, but after that, leave the line to freighters and track crews. Same applies to Brisbane.
  Duncs Chief Commissioner

Most definitely two things need to happen. Duplicate the single track Junee to Albury - Wodonga, and electrifying the line from Sydney to Melbourne. Given that the new trains on this line are going to be Bi Modal, then they would gain a great deal from the  electrification. They would be able to travel at 160 kph for longer periods and accelerate faster from stations. That would save travel time straight away.

Then we can look at better track alignments etc.. Then we can also look at improving the pathways for SG into Melbourne, which will need to happen anyway.

Some sections of faster that 160 kph can then be possible. Probably up to 180 - 200 KPH.

All of the above can then reduce the the travel time from the current 11.5 hours down to 9.0 hours without spending silly amounts of money..
  route14 Chief Commissioner

You'll need AC / DC bi-mode for electrification of this length, not the ordered DC / diesel bi-mode.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

You'll need AC / DC bi-mode for electrification of this length, not the ordered DC / diesel bi-mode.
route14

The system on the new regional trains can be setup for AC and DC I believe although they are setup only for 1500vdc at the moment. These new trains are going to be using so much less fuel then the Xplorer and XPT it isn't funny.
  Duncs Chief Commissioner

You'll need AC / DC bi-mode for electrification of this length, not the ordered DC / diesel bi-mode.

The system on the new regional trains can be setup for AC and DC I believe although they are setup only for 1500vdc at the moment. These new trains are going to be using so much less fuel then the Xplorer and XPT it isn't funny.
simstrain
Both Victoria and NSW used the same 1500 vdc set up. So no issues there.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
You'll need AC / DC bi-mode for electrification of this length, not the ordered DC / diesel bi-mode.

The system on the new regional trains can be setup for AC and DC I believe although they are setup only for 1500vdc at the moment. These new trains are going to be using so much less fuel then the Xplorer and XPT it isn't funny.
Both Victoria and NSW used the same 1500 vdc set up. So no issues there.
Duncs
Victoria doesn't have any electrified standard gauge.
  route14 Chief Commissioner

The section that needs to be electrified will be about five times the length of the existing electrified section in NSW which makes 25 kV AC justifiable.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
The section that needs to be electrified will be about five times the length of the existing electrified section in NSW which makes 25 kV AC justifiable.
route14
They won't be electrifying the Donnybrook - Illabo section of the existing mainline, unless the overhead can be strung up (and kept) at 7100 millimetres above the rails.
  Duncs Chief Commissioner

You'll need AC / DC bi-mode for electrification of this length, not the ordered DC / diesel bi-mode.

The system on the new regional trains can be setup for AC and DC I believe although they are setup only for 1500vdc at the moment. These new trains are going to be using so much less fuel then the Xplorer and XPT it isn't funny.
Both Victoria and NSW used the same 1500 vdc set up. So no issues there.
Victoria doesn't have any electrified standard gauge.
Nightfire
You missed my point. Victoria is capable of doing 1500 vdc as its suburban networks already uses it. So running a SG electrification to NSW is perfectly doable.
  Duncs Chief Commissioner

The section that needs to be electrified will be about five times the length of the existing electrified section in NSW which makes 25 kV AC justifiable.
They won't be electrifying the Donnybrook - Illabo section of the existing mainline, unless the overhead can be strung up (and kept) at 7100 metres above the rails.
Nightfire
7100 metres? Or 7.1 metres? Why is that height an issue?
  Lockspike Deputy Commissioner

High Speed Rail? - Do it properly or just don't bother, after all, flying is such a pleasant experience
I am not sure if meant that in jest, but as someone who does fly regularly, both in command and as a passenger, there is not much I dislike more than travelling as a passenger on an airline. Overpriced parking, overpriced train tickets, overpriced everything in the terminal, dealing with the idiots at *cough* "security", waiting at the gate, waiting for pushback, waiting for the other passengers who don't fly regularly to realise they fit more in the lockers if the wheels go to the back instead of sideways, masking the "I've heard this all before" expression when they do the safety brief, waiting for the passenger in front to put their seat back on a short-haul flight if I don't get a bulkhead row, waiting for ATC to slow us down because the system in Australia can't cope with the traffic volumes waiting at baggage claim, waiting for train connections from the airport.
KRviator
What I said was far from jest; rather, a cynical truism.

There will be a reduction in the need to travel due to 'the virus', however, it may take a while, but I reckon travel for leisure and business will recover.

Something that is of considerably greater certainty is that HSR will continue to be an evergreen topic for a manifold of posts on Railpage. Smile
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The section that needs to be electrified will be about five times the length of the existing electrified section in NSW which makes 25 kV AC justifiable.
They won't be electrifying the Donnybrook - Illabo section of the existing mainline, unless the overhead can be strung up (and kept) at 7100 metres above the rails.
Nightfire
7100 metres? Or 7.1 metres? Why is that height an issue?
"Duncs"


Height is manageable and it would be 25kVA all the way into Mel but on Sydney 1500VDC OH once under the current wires.

However O/H won't happen unless services break the 1h frequency and / or exceed 200 km/h, both unlikely.
  Duncs Chief Commissioner

The section that needs to be electrified will be about five times the length of the existing electrified section in NSW which makes 25 kV AC justifiable.
They won't be electrifying the Donnybrook - Illabo section of the existing mainline, unless the overhead can be strung up (and kept) at 7100 metres above the rails.
7100 metres? Or 7.1 metres? Why is that height an issue?


Height is manageable and it would be 25kVA all the way into Mel but on Sydney 1500VDC OH once under the current wires.

However O/H won't happen unless services break the 1h frequency and / or exceed 200 km/h, both unlikely.
RTT_Rules
RTT You do have a point there. Frequency is the big factor here.
  route14 Chief Commissioner

Perhaps some new AC / DC locomotives for freight as well?
  Cubologist Station Staff

The section that needs to be electrified will be about five times the length of the existing electrified section in NSW which makes 25 kV AC justifiable.
They won't be electrifying the Donnybrook - Illabo section of the existing mainline, unless the overhead can be strung up (and kept) at 7100 metres above the rails.
7100 metres? Or 7.1 metres? Why is that height an issue?
Duncs
Minimum vertical clearance for double stacking containers
  route14 Chief Commissioner

So that will be 7.1 metres.  At 7100 metres are you trying to run electric aeroplanes or what?
    I can't find any information on maximum pantograph extent of Victorian electric rollingstock, so I checked the counterpart for some Chinese AC locomotives instead.  For a locomotive with a height of 2.76 metres the maximum pantograph extent is 6.5 metres above rail head.  Most passenger rollingstocks in Victoria are about 4.2 metres high so there is no problem raising the pantograph to 7.1 metres.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: