Re: Implications of high speed trains in Victoria

["Peter Berrett" <pberrett@optushome.com.au>]

David Bromage <dbromage@fang.omni.com.au> wrote in message
Z1yG5.88$QR.4732@news0.optus.net.au">news:Z1yG5.88$QR.4732@news0.optus.net.au...
> Peter Berrett (pberrett@optushome.com.au) wrote:
> > > Even with only 100km/h beyond Ballarat, a day train to Mildura would
be a
> > > better use of the equipment. The journey time would be roughly 7
hours.
>
> > This raises some interesting questions regarding the line beyond
Ballarat.
>
> > 1. What is the maximum permissable speed Mildura to Ballarat currently?
>
> Last I heard, it was 80km/h Ballaray to Ouyen and 65km/h to Merbein. The
> V/Line proposal is to raise this to at elast 100km/h all the way.

A 6 hour service seems possible on the Maryborough line if the upgrade
occurs. Ballarat is about 120 kms from Melbourne so that would leave about
437 kms to traverse in 5 hours = average of about 87 kmh. Ideally upgrading
to 115kmh would give a little bit of margin.

>
> > 2. Could a specially designed train eg tilt train go faster on existing
> > track between Mildura and Ballarat?
>
> The line is fairly straight as is. You're not going to save much time by
> tilting.

XPT perhaps?

>
> > 3. What would be the cheapest way to achieve a 5 hour service Mildura to
> > Melbourne (thus enabling a daylight round trip assuming Melbourne to
> > Ballarat was a 1 hour trip and the rest was express with maybe 1 further
> > stop at Maryborough?
>
> 5 hours to cover 600 odd km would probably require 180km/h running all the
> way. This should give the required average speed of 120km/h.

6 hours seems possibel without too much effort (see above)

>
> > 4. Would it be better to create a link from Ouyen to Swan Hill so that
> > trains could go via Bendigo?
>
> That has been discussed.

Would it be faster? Is the line Swan Hill to Bendigo in good nick and fast?

>
> > 5. Why can't existing tracks take trains at 90 mph? They seem flat and
> > straight enough.
>
> Staight and flat isn't the only factor. If the track is rough, that keeps
> the speed down. You may also need more ballast, you will definately need
> improvements to signalling.

I would have thought that signalling would not be such a great cost in the
larger scheme of things.

>
> The question which hasn't been raised is whether the high speed lines are
> going to get some form of cab signalling. During the Violet Town inquest,
> VR got around the question of why there wasn't any cab signalling because
> they presented the US evidence that was only required for 80mph and above.

Can't they just make the signals bigger and brighter so they can be seen
from further away?

>
> Now I know that Britain ran steam at 120mph without cap signalling, but
> the rule of thumb these days is 160km/h and above. The US still has the
> 79mph rule.
>
> Cheers
> David
>
>

cheers Peter