Re: VFT/VHST - third time lucky?

[petercook2705@my-deja.com]

If you could realign Douglas Park-Mittagong and rebuild Goulburn-
Canberra, getting rid of most of the slow areas, then bring the rest up
to scratch for 160km/h-plus operations, and Electrify the lot, you
could use modified V-sets (or a new design of a similar nature (21st
century U-Boats with a lounge car, satellite phones and a buffet
perhaps)) on this run.

Even if you only ran at 160km/h, you would still get from Syd-Cbr via
East Hills in a fraction over two hours, maybe two and a half.  Push it
up to 200km/h and you'd get under two hours.

If you ran a service with a two hourly frequency, you'd only need three
or four sets to maintain the service while still providing for layovers
and maintenance.  The sheer convenience of having a frequent,
predictable service like we presently have in the V-set sphere of
operations would win over a lot of people.  If you put it under the
CityRail banner and treat it exactly like a Newcastle or Lithgow
service, the sky would be the limit.

Given that a two hourly frequency would be more than the market
presently has access to using any forms of transport from Sydney-
Melbourne, there is a risk of an initial oversupply, however surely
there would be the potential to win enough patronage to maintain such a
service if it is ever established.

The only problem with that would be that CityRail would probably be
obliged to offer $3.30 excursion tickets to pensioners, who would
probably wind up being the people who use the service the most (though
at least that is $3.30 more than they pay CountryLink).

Any thoughts?


MrPC


In article <91bl7n$l9k$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Colin Weaver <colingw@my-deja.com> wrote:
> 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).


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