Re: VFT/VHST - third time lucky?

[Colin Weaver <colingw@my-deja.com>]

In article <3A38DB79.6679@today.com.au>,
  onamission@today.com.au wrote:
> > I think a similar incremental approach would benefit Sydney -
Melbourne
> > (and Melbourne - Adelaide), with Sydney - Melbourne eventually
> > warranting electrification.
>
> Spot on. There is vast amounts that we can do now by upgrading
existing
> infrastructure to improve services; trouble is getting a private
bidder
> interested in it. The Acela is a good example. Rather than spend money
> on an entirely new dedicated line, Amtrak upgraded the Northeast
> Corridor to just below true high speed standard, geared the train for
a
> slightly lower speed (a top of 240km/h), and still made significant
> savings timewise over the incumbent Metroliners. Realignment between
> Campbelltown and Mittagong, rebuilding Goulburn-Canberra and
> electrification to Canberra IMO would be an excellent start at
> relatively low cost; given some success in attracting people away from
> the bus, a significant amount of infrastructure would be in place for
> future extension. It's the Sydney to Melbourne corridor that rail
needs
> to concentrate on, not Sydney to Brisbane. The latter just doesn't
have
> enough traffic, even for the coachlines, to make it worthwhile.

I agree.  There's no point concentrating on a line which is past
redemption.  Sydney - Canberra has enormous potential to attract much
higher patronage.  As pointed out by Barry Campbell in another post,
over longer distances such as Brisbane - Rockhampton or Sydney -
Melbourne the incremental approach is unlikely to take much away from
the airlines - ie the main users will still be subsidised pensioners.
If you can get the transit time below about 4 hours, you'll probably
attract a lot of passengers away from air.  This has certainly been the
case with the Brisbane - Bundaberg tilt service (2 per day each way, as
opposed to 1 Rockhampton service).  For longer distances, while there's
still benefit in the incremental approach because it is at least
affordable, it won't ever compare with a true VHST.  Furthermore, given
the huge distances involved compared to Europe, a viable inter-capital
line in Australia would need to run at higher speeds, say 350Km/h or
even 400Km/h.  (But still conventional high speed rail, not this Maglev
nonsense).

>
> > Does anyone have any suggestions as to how the Sydney - Brisbane
line
> > could be usefully upgraded?
>
> It just can't be IMO either, in terms of improving it for speed
> purposes. The North Coast line's future passengerwise IMO is as a
> tourist line, and freightwise I think it would be better off running
via
> the Main North and linking up with Melbourne-Brisbane. Even if that
> isn't built, a relatively small investment in rebuilding the line
> through Wallangarra would save a lot of time and attract a lot more
> business.
>
> Dion
>

If you look at the ATEC page (http://www.aire.com.au), you'll see that
they plan to upgrade the NSW North Western line to connect Newcastle to
the Melbourne - Brisbane via Moree / Goondiwindi line.  There is
absolutely no benefit in going via Wallangarra - the existing alignments
(NSW & QLD) on this corridor are exceedingly slow compared to going
further west, crossing the border at Goondiwindi, then cutting across
to Toowoomba via Millmerran.  Plus, here in QLD we really need a
replacement Toowoomba range crossing - the magnificent old line to
Toowoomba has passed its use-by date and needs to be placed into
semi-retirement as a tourist attraction.

--
This account is a spam filter.  Please send e-mail replies to:
colin dot weaver at boeing dot com


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/