$200b fast rail is 'potential trainwreck'

 

News article: $200b fast rail is 'potential trainwreck'

Transport experts have dismissed the latest plan to build a fast rail system between Melbourne and Sydney as a potential "financial trainwreck" that fails the economics test because of high costs.

  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Isn't this just typtical Australia.  "Transport Experts" poo poo an idea for a fast train but at the same time fail to delivery at real game changing transport projects for this country.

This article and Bracks not worth the time to read.

$200b fast rail is 'potential trainwreck'

Sponsored advertisement

  apw5910 Chief Commissioner

Location: Location: Location.
Isn't this just typtical Australia.  "Transport Experts" poo poo an idea for a fast train but at the same time fail to delivery at real game changing transport projects for this country.
bevans
"Look over there" is a well known ploy in politics to avoid doing something...
  dthead Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
a lot more discussion here:  https://www.railpage.com.au/f-p2021612.htm#2021612

David

( note this is the 4th thread on this in as many days)
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

Isn't this just typtical Australia.  "Transport Experts" poo poo an idea for a fast train but at the same time fail to delivery at real game changing transport projects for this country.

This article and Bracks not worth the time to read.

$200b fast rail is 'potential trainwreck'
bevans
Bevans. Stick to site admin, which is something you know about. The fast rail project is just a scam to obtain land on the cheap and is something not needed. I agree totally with the article.
  eddyb Chief Train Controller

This is the email I sent them this morning.
Hi
I see a superfast train in the future capable of twice the speed of HSR in a 6m diameter pipe with air pressure reduced to .19 psi the same as that of an airliner at cruise level.

This would be very similar to the Hyperloop but larger with only a partial vacuum but with these greater speeds there would be two consequences that you may consider now.

The first is an almost dead straight track mostly in tunnels due to the 4t per metre pipe and the second is that as it would be so quick it would only need a single track with a shuttle between cities.

Perhaps you would consider terminating at Parrahub where most people could then transfer to the northern superfast train or any other destination.

Regards Eddy Barnett

Parrahub an extra option in the public transport menu https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model.html?id=ucf45f506-3b7b-40d7-9741-176dde66e6c7
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat Line
Isn't this just typtical Australia.  "Transport Experts" poo poo an idea for a fast train but at the same time fail to delivery at real game changing transport projects for this country.

This article and Bracks not worth the time to read.

$200b fast rail is 'potential trainwreck'
bevans

Almost all the armchair commentators who post in these pages have also poo pooed the proposal...but what would they know either..
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Mike,
One for you, this proposal is going no where and will die the natural death it deserves.

Transport experts have dismissed the latest plan to build a fast rail system between Melbourne and Sydney as a potential "financial trainwreck" that fails the economics test because of high costs.

The plan from Consolidated Land and Rail Australia would be funded by speculative land deals aimed at turning rural land worth $1.2 billion into residential lots worth $180 billion.

"It appears that this latest fast train proposal is driven by funding opportunities from higher land prices which can be highly speculative and unreliable," said Garry Bowditch, head of the Better Infrastructure Initiative at Sydney University.

Nick Cleary, chairman of Consolidated Land and Rail Australia, the company pushing the $200 billion plan to build eight new "smart cities" along the fast rail route, said it would be funded entirely from land deals and not need public funding.

Mr Cleary said rural land along the route, which runs via Shepparton, Victoria – the first stage – and Gundagai and Goulburn in NSW to Sydney, could be bought for about $1000 per block and sold for about $150,000 a lot.

"That uplift gives you the capacity to fund the rail and civil infrastructure," Mr Cleary, a former dairy farmer and NSW Nationals vice-chairman, told reporters in Melbourne.

"It's a cities and sustainable development plan. It's not a high-speed-rail plan, but high-speed rail is essential."

Consolidated Land and Rail Australia (CLARA) has attracted former NSW premier Barry O'Farrell, former Victorian premier Steve Bracks and former US transport secretary Ray LaHood to its board.

But the company did not release findings of a pre-feasibility study or likely fares, saying this was "commercial in confidence".
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Isn't this just typtical Australia.  "Transport Experts" poo poo an idea for a fast train but at the same time fail to delivery at real game changing transport projects for this country.

This article and Bracks not worth the time to read.

$200b fast rail is 'potential trainwreck'
bevans

The game changing transport projects for passenger railways will be in the cities and not rural areas. In rural areas we need new dual purpose alignments. Something that can benefit both types of transport. Boosting transport efficiency to the city and ports.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Isn't this just typtical Australia.  "Transport Experts" poo poo an idea for a fast train but at the same time fail to delivery at real game changing transport projects for this country.

This article and Bracks not worth the time to read.

$200b fast rail is 'potential trainwreck'

Almost all the armchair commentators who post in these pages have also poo pooed the proposal...but what would they know either..
The Vinelander
Some on RP have had a great deal of experience in the industry and this is combined with common sense in many cases.

The technology, quite apart from the money, simply does not exist now or in the foreseeable future to achieve what is claimed. It is a scam.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat Line
Isn't this just typtical Australia.  "Transport Experts" poo poo an idea for a fast train but at the same time fail to delivery at real game changing transport projects for this country.

This article and Bracks not worth the time to read.

$200b fast rail is 'potential trainwreck'

Almost all the armchair commentators who post in these pages have also poo pooed the proposal...but what would they know either..
Some on RP have had a great deal of experience in the industry and this is combined with common sense in many cases.

The technology, quite apart from the money, simply does not exist now or in the foreseeable future to achieve what is claimed. It is a scam.
YM-Mundrabilla

If it truly IS a scam...why announce and support the proposal that you say technology doesn't even exist for, can advantage nobody and make two formerly popular and in the case of Steve Bracks at least from this Victorian, intelligent Premiers...of both political colours look like idiots Question

Mike.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Money..............!!
How much are Bracks and O' Farrell being paid?
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
'
If it truly IS a scam...why announce and support the proposal that you say technology doesn't even exist for, can advantage nobody and make two formerly popular and in the case of Steve Bracks at least from this Victorian, intelligent Premiers...of both political colours look like idiots
"The Vinelander"
Simply because they know little or nothing about the technology of high speed rail, and are being led by "experts". Bracks may well have been an intelligent premier, but he relied on other "experts" to advise him, just as he is now.
Soon, somebody is going to ask the obvious question, "How many people will use it, and what will they pay?"
CLARA is not in this for altruistic reasons, and I want to know where they're going to recoup their money, and from whom. It stacks up about as well as the Nigerian money scam.

I know that The Vinelander is passionate about HSR, but passion is famous for diverting attention away from reality.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
^It's all about trying to gain control housing construction for decades - this is what it's really about (not rail).

Building new commuter towns in the middle of nowhere is much less environmentally friendly than continuing to expand sprawl.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Simply because they know little or nothing about the technology of high speed rail, and are being led by "experts". Bracks may well have been an intelligent premier, but he relied on other "experts" to advise him, just as he is now.
Valvegear
This has nothing to do with the viability of the construction of the railway line itself and everything to do with extracting the increased value of land along the corridor - they're not the least bit interested in whether or not the railway will actually work in providing a viable alternative to flying.

Bracks et al. are only paid to spruik the project, they probably couldn't tell you anything about whether the numbers would work or not... a bit like a celebrity endorsement or a perfume or hamburger.
  konkos Assistant Commissioner

Location: Live next door to half-bar
I am of the view that it would be good in the long term for this to happen.  However,  if push comes toshove, it mostly likely to fail for the same reason as the first attempt under the Keating Govt, that they didn;t get the tax write-offs or the tax breaks they wanted for the project.  The various Govts are not going to put their hands in their pockets to fund such a large project but if these people who think it's possible can make a go of it, then the Govts will certainly assist in as much as they can.  It remains to be seen for how long the airlines will stand by before they start making noises to the Govts that the whole is unfair etc.  I am surprised that this is still on the on the "front page" so to speak as the elections are over.  The whole thing is a case of - here we go again. We have all heard it all before. I'll say this much, I hope I'm wrong.
konkos
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Sydney and Melbourne Commuter rail needs a subsidy of about 30-35%, I believe most would agree that interurban commuter train travel requires an even larger subsidy due to the lower fares/km, higher cost trains and lower density of traffic. So how is a high unit cost rail technology supposed to be affordable and profitable for a distance of 200-400km as a commuter option? People are seriously dreaming if they think this would be any way viable. Its not anywhere else!

To resolve the growing city issue, we will continue to conversion of low density to higher density housing. Additionally all three east coast capital cities have ancient rail infrastructure feeding their interurban commuter networks. Vic and Qld have built some modern interurban lines, ie rebuilt Geelong and Ballarat and the Gold Coast line to the north and eventually the Sunny Coast line when finished. But they all suffer the same issue upon entering the suburban network, slow track speeds and/or poor alignment. GC line is case in point, where it takes ~40min to travel 40km then 20min to travel the last 40km.

Sydney has 4 interurban corridors. The track speeds from the last suburban station to the terminus is mostly shocking especially the South coast line and not much better leading up to the last suburban station. Sydney has huge potential growth in the SW.

The fed govt over next 2-3 decades faces rising social welfare and medical costs to fund OAP for the baby boomers.

Fix the real issues, don't go dreaming!
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

The places that this company wants to build new cities is where our resources come from. Our minerals, livestock, grains, fruits and milk come from. Why are we trying to destroy that just to build new cities when there is still so many vacant properties in the cities that could be used with a little change in legislation to help free up these properties for people to use.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
The fed govt over next 2-3 decades faces rising social welfare and medical costs to fund OAP for the baby boomers.
RTT_Rules
Force them to spend their superannuation on their own care as originally intended.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The fed govt over next 2-3 decades faces rising social welfare and medical costs to fund OAP for the baby boomers.
Force them to spend their superannuation on their own care as originally intended.
don_dunstan
You do know Don that those starting work before around 1995 have reduced Super compared to those starting after. Even as late as late 90's there was still problems with the Super system, for example my Mother in law's company (she is nurse in old age care facility) owner stole the lot from their staff and there is not a damn thing the ATO or other has been able to do about it.

So considering a retirement age of around late 60's, it won't be until the late 2030's when the Super system will be effectively in place benefiting the oldies and the govt. Then there is the other problem,, how much? Generally those with self sufficient Super would have been ok anyway. Much of the population will still have inadequate levels of Super to save the taxpayer too much but better than the Baby Boomers. I believe I've read numbers around 5-10 years of retirement, then onto the OAP.
  MetroFemme Assistant Commissioner

The new proposal is more about opening up Australia fir growth. Not before time.
  locojoe67 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Gen X purgatory/urban Joh-land
Force them to spend their superannuation on their own care as originally intended.

While I share those sentiments its unfortunately a solution that just won't work. The majority of boomers simply don't have now, and won't ever have big balance super funds. And the politics of envy means the socialist media focusses on the few that do in order to stoke resentment and influence policy against them. Like this:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-10/baby-boomers-get-richer-at-expense-of-young/5957468

Yes, there are generous retiree tax concessions available once you pass  certain ages. But they benefit precious few. For the majority of boomers, despite a mining boom in their highest income earning years most of them haven't/haven't been able to contribute anywhere near enough to super. Causes include divorce, generally poor paying work, and a generalised desire to inflate their living standards by borrowing against future income. Lets face it, populist baby boomer culture has never advocated the benefits of delayed gratification. And some just contributed the minimum % 'cause that's literally all they could afford.

Average baby boomer super balances are estimated at below 100k for women, and just over 100k for men:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/superannuation-falls-short-for-retirement/story-fn961iy1-1226085202767

Low interest rates has encouraged higher personal debt, with many people still heavily indebted well into their fifties. Mortgages, car loans, credit cards, subsidising kidults by not charging board and the like. These boomers are probably counting on a nice little inheritance or super balance to get rid of that debt while they work as long as they have jobs.

Which for many isn't and won't be as long as they'd like. While Last in first off is a general rule for layoffs, workplaces aren't always kind to older workers either, with many being punted and struggling to get replacement jobs at similar pay scales.

It's a cruel world.
  locojoe67 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Gen X purgatory/urban Joh-land
opening up Australia for growth

Greenfield design and construction can be more cost effective than re-building existing infrastructure. But growth is only a necessity in a society ordered by Keynesian principles. It doesn't mean its desirable, or even possible.

Do we really want an Australia with forty, fifty or seventy-five million people?
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
The other issue that no one appears to have mentioned is that the cost of maintaining a maglev system would be astronomically high - even higher than the original wheel-on-rail proposal.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
The new proposal is more about opening up Australia fir growth. Not before time.
"MetroFemme"
The other thing that nobody's mentioned is that once you're inland from what Geographers call the Eastern Highlands ( often incorrectly referred to as the Dividing Range), you are in a huge area with not much water to spare. Let's plant these new economic centre cities out there, and let them all die of thirst.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The new proposal is more about opening up Australia fir growth. Not before time.
The other thing that nobody's mentioned is that once you're inland from what Geographers call the Eastern Highlands ( often incorrectly referred to as the Dividing Range), you are in a huge area with not much water to spare. Let's plant these new economic centre cities out there, and let them all die of thirst.
Valvegear
This is a very good point and I notice Vinelander disagrees but has not indicated why or where water to feed 10m people will come from.

Another poster a few days ago mentioned that Syd and Mel would run out of power and water. Both Syd and Mel will have access to energy in both gas and electrical to grow 5 x the population and with these you have access to water from the sea.

For the Inland city(s), some water would be available locally and/or along east coast range through dam construction, especially with significant recycling, but a pipeline is ultimately required. Riyadh pumps water from the coastal desal plants about 400km.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.