Re: VFT/VHST - third time lucky?

[Dion Williams <onamission@today.com.au>]

petercook2705@my-deja.com wrote:
 
> 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.

Given an average of around 80km/h through the metropolitan area, up to a
maximum of 180km/h on the rebuilt sections, with recovery time built in
I think 2:30 would be a reasonable target at least to begin with. Having
your new tilt train always run behind schedule while it's trying to
attract passengers doesn't look too good. And it still beats the bus by
over an hour.

> 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.

Knowing it's always there is a big factor in the popularity of high
speed rail in Europe; there really is a train always there when you want
one. Australia doesn't have the population to support the half hourly
services the Shinkansen and TGV offer, but 2 to 3 hours would be more
than adequate IMO. Learning that you have sometimes have to give to get
seems to be taking some rail authorities a while.

Dion