Re: VFT/VHST - third time lucky?

["Andrew Honan" <ahonan@zipworld.com.au>]

"David Bromage" <dbromage@fang.omni.com.au> wrote in message
ubXZ5.1154$Le6.7032@news0.optus.net.au">news:ubXZ5.1154$Le6.7032@news0.optus.net.au...
> Maurie Daly (mauried@tpg.com.au) wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 02:05:17 GMT, dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David
> > Bromage) wrote:
>
> > >I should have added that some of the technologies, e.g. Talgo and
Adtranz,
> > >can be done incrementally. You start by running diesel tilt trains
(e.g.
> > >Sydney - Canberra) on the existing line at conventional speeds. Then
start
> > >upgrading the line, and finally electrify.
> > >
> > >The advantage of this is you can be getting income from fares before
you
> > >start building, rather than 3 years of construction before the first
fare
> > >is paid.
>
> > Theoretically yes, but in practice no.
> > Whilst the existing lines are Govt owned ,the private sector will take
> > no interest whatsoever in upgrading them .
>
> This is exactly what Capital Rail proposed to do. The consortium included
> Countrylink.
>
> Cheers
> David

If the inland freight route go aheads it is hard to see any push for a high
speed passenger rail service along the main south or main north of NSW.
The Productivity Commission looked at competition FOR the market and
competition IN the market in Rail Reform report. If we separate non-bulk
freight from intercity passengers and concentrate on intercity passengers,
it is hard to see a rail fare from Syd-Canberra  (single full fare, one way)
matching the bus fare of $17.50 (Murrays). (The price to go from central to
the airport by train is $10.00!!).

Competition within the airline industry is fierce (Some fares from Syd -
Melb are $149).

Rail freight economics are easier to justify. A new inland rail line will
mean less maintenance and less impetus for upgrading of the main north and
south.

I find it hard to justify the economics of high speed rail. There would have
to be a lot of extra travel (ie a much larger market) and I think airlines
and busses will get the larger share of this if it did eventuate.

I would love high speed rail to exist, but it will have to offer
substantially more advantages to the consumer than other modes (ie price and
travel time).

Perhaps tilt trains may work if their infrastructure costs are a lot lower.
The Gov may enter into Private-Public-Participation with private industry,
whereby the Gov (or maybe the superannuation industry) finances the
infrastructure/capital costs while the private operators cover the operating
costs? You would have to look at it carefully - the Gov would not want to
bankroll another dud, and certainly the super funds would not want to put
their funds at risk.

Regards
Andrew