Re: Overland to continue 4 another 2 years

[mauried@tpg.com.au (Maurie Daly)]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:04:05 GMT, RC <richy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>Maurie Daly wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 06:45:54 GMT, "Peter Berrett"
>> <pberrett@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Maurie Daly" <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>> >3b21bcaf.7540732@can-news.tpg.com.au">news:3b21bcaf.7540732@can-news.tpg.com.au...
>> >> Its simplistic in the extreme to simply take the whole distance and
>> >> divide by 8 .
>> >
>> >It gives you something to an idea of what speed you need to average.
>> >Simplistic yes, practical yes also.
>> >
>> >> Some parts of the journey have very low speed limits.
>> >> Spencer St to Newport takes 30 mins for a distance of 10 km, average
>> >> speed 60 km/h . Nothing can be done to improve this short of completely re
>> >routing the
>> >line .
>> >
>> >Why is this? If this is so perhaps consideration needs to be given to dual
>> >gauging the broad gauge line to Newport.
>>
>> Its simply because of the route that the SG line takes to get to
>> Newport.
>> Peter, can I take from your comments that you havnt actually travelled
>> by train from Melb to Adelaide.
>> If so , then I suggest you do so before continuing this discussion.
>>
>> >
>> >> Going thru Nth Geelong there are 40 km./ h curves and restrictions
>> >> where the dual guage track starts and stops , same at Gheringhap.
>> >> There is a 40 km/h curve at Maroona .
>> >> There are no cheap solutions to bypassing the Adelaide Hills.
>> >> >
>> >> >850 km/8 hours = around 106 km/hour average. Surely the line would in
>> >places
>> >> >permit 130 kmh running if not 160kmh.
>> >> It probably would , but average speed isnt top speed .
>> >> The Sydney - Melb XPT covers the 317 km from Spencer St to Albury in 3
>> >> hours with 2 stops , travelling just about all the way at 130 km/h .
>> >> Average speed = 105 km/ h .
>> >>
>> >> For Melb to Adelaide , 30 mins Spencer St to Newport (10 Kms) and 90
>> >> mins Murray Bridge - Keswick (100 kms) means that the rest of the
>> >> journey ,740 km needs to take no more than 6 hours , average speed =
>> >> 123 km/h .
>> >
>> >> Not possible with a max of 130 km/h  but just possible with max speed
>> >> of 160 km/h .
>> >> Currently in VIC , 160 km/h isnt allowed at all.
>> >
>> >Why not? Can the line take it?
>>
>> Not in Victoria without a good deal of re ballasting .
>>
>> >
>> >> 8 hours in the best now you can do , without massive track
>> >> improvements and this just isnt practical for 2 trains a day.
>> >> Besides , what evidence is there that reducing the travelling times
>> >> will equate to a huge increase in patronage .
>> >
>> >Look at France. Look at the patronage success of the TGV. Plus you have two
>> >major cities with various incentives (football, shopping, cinema...) for
>> >people to travel from one city to the other. Build it and they will come.
>>
>> The population of France is 60 million people living in a country
>> smaller than the State of NSW.
>> Paris alone has a population of 11 million people .
>> There is no comparison whatsoever between the European situation
>> and Australia .
>> We simply dont have enuf people to justify or support very fast trains
>> .
>
>We get this argument spoken with authority in this NG all the time - but does
>anyone see through it?
>
>NSW and France are about the same size - France has (say) 60 million people and
>NSW about 6 million - therefore ten times the size
>The argument appears to stand
>
>NSW and Sweden are about the same size, NSW has the same 6 million it did in the
>previous assertion, Sweden has about 8 million (only 1/3rd more people) Sweden
>also has widespread electrification, Tilt Trains (yes and we've seen them and
>some of us have ridden on them) their trains can do **over** 200km/h, they've
>just built a tunnel under the sea to Denmark, Stockholm has a decent underground
>and Goteborg has decent light rail etc etc etc etc...The argument above is
>looking a bit shaky
>
>NSW (Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong) are about the same size as Switzerland -
>NSW (Newcastle Sydney and Wollongong) have about 5 million people and Switzerland
>about 7 million (similar ratio as above) and both are characterised by rugged
>terrain, dispersed population, Switzerland has a much better road network, trains
>going as fast as the can and often faster than here in the rugged terrain,
>clockwork timetables, clean, easy to use, seamless mixture of public and private.
>
>The population argument is looking very shaky now
>
>You won't read the following in the Terrorgraph in the context of Sydney (say 2
>Swiss Francs to our dollar)
>
>The Federal Council Gets the Votes (Neue Zurcher Zeitung)
>
>              Swiss voters have backed the Federal Council's policies on
>transportation and narcotics. In last
> Sunday's balloting, ***63.6% approved the Sfr. 30 billion financing for NEAT
>(the new trans-Alpine rail system) and other major rail projects***, and 73.9%
>resoundingly rejected an initiative to legalize drugs. The new Labor Law passed
>on its second attempt, and grain legislation was uncontested.
> Having given a surprising thumbs-up to the Graduated Heavy Truck Tariff (GHTT)
>in the referendum of 27 September, Swiss voters have now taken the next step and
>said Yes to legislation on the construction and financing of infrastructure for
>public transportation (known as "Finputran" for short). Against heavy opposition
>from the conservative Swiss People's Party (SPP) and the automobile lobby, the
>proposed legislation received a clear majority of 1,104,235 votes (63.6%) in
>favor versus 634,711 (36.4%) opposed. This makes Sfr. 30.5 billion available in
>the coming 20 years for the construction of new railway tunnels at the Gotthard
>and Lötschberg, for completion of the Rail 2000 project, for linking Switzerland
>to Europe's high-speed rail net, and for anti-noise measures along railroad
>lines. Switzerland has now done its homework with regard to transport policy,
>sending a clear signal to the European Union that the country is serious about
>its bilateral negotiations with the EU on the subject.
>
>To wrap up, population is wherever you measure it from (the Texas Sharpshooter)
>and we aren't asking for the Broken Hill TGV - just decent services, as fast as
>we can afford, between major centres, clean, punctual etc. - RC
>
>> MD
>

I dont quite understand your argurments.
In Sweden, France, Switzerland the Railway system is paid for and
provided for by the National Govt of the country in question.
Here in Australia this is not the case , the railways are State
responsibilities.
There is no doubt that if the federal Govt in Australia wanted to ,
and the States agreed to let it , that a hi speed rail system could be
built and it would work well.
However , the Feds have indicated that they are not interested in
funding hi speed railways and that any such railways have to be
completely developed and paid for by the private sector.
My argument is that a privately funded hi speed railway cannot work in
Australia with our limited population.

MD