Re: Brief trip report MEL-CBR-MEL and thoughts on 737 vs A320 cabins.

[matthew@mail.usyd.edu.au (Matthew Geier)]

In article <397B29E3.3A46A628@videotron.ca>,
JF Mezei  <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote:
>Dave Proctor wrote:
>> Considering city-centre to city-centre journey times, it would probably be
>> comparable. The clincher would be reliability, the knock on effect of delays
>> at Sydney airport impacting on MEL-CBR flights, and the lack of delays on
>> the train, might be what swings many people over on this sector.
>
>How reliable can the train really be ? If it rains, or there is fog, is the
>train still allowed to go as fast ?  How many level crossings are there ? What
>happens during the periods where there is work being done on tracks ? (or
>power lines).

 Trains running at that speed are not driven on sight anyway. The signals are
relayed to the cab, TGV and Shinkasen lines do not have wayside signals. Fog
and heavy rain are not significant problems. The driver can't react fast
enough even if they do have clear view. High speed lines do not have
level crossings, are fenced and often have other systems to ensure the line
is clear. (Japanese lines have earthquake detectors...)
>
>In Canada, train is unreliable due to weather. All the track work is
>concentrated in the summer time, and in winter, the weather slows things down.

 Australia doesn't have weather at all compared to Canada! You guys have storms
unheard of. Remember a great chunk of Australia is above the Tropic of
Capricorn. We don't have -40 blizards that can bury freight trains..


>Unless you're going to get a commitment similar to TGV or japanese bullet
>train with crews working on tracks during the night, every night, you'll end
>up with a train service where there is always some excuse not to be on-time.

 Thats what the SpeedRail proposal is. A 'stock' TGV line. Standard TGV sets
straight of the production line in France, capable of sustained 320-350km/hr
running. Little to no modification for Australia. The only reason they are
currently limited to 300Km/hr in France in is that the tracks and signaling
are designed for 270-300km/hr. Faster trains need to be able to stop in the
same distance as the older slower ones, as that is what the system is
designed for. Its that extra braking power that is holding them back, not
pouring on more motor power to run faster. (Although the law of dimishing
returns has set in, as areodynamic drag is increases with the square of
speed doesn't it. Each extra bit of speed costs lots in terms of energy...)


 SpeedRail were proposing to lay out thier new line for 350+Km/hr running,
thus when the technology can pack more power in the space, they can use it,
and not be held back by the alignment of the track and limitations of
signal system as is happening now in France and Japan.