> Barry Campbell wrote:
> >
> > Robert Howard wrote in message <6i5d0s$a58$1@monty.tassie.net.au>...
> >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > >I doubt that rail could compete over a given route based solely on the time
> > >taken to travel from point A to B. I would like to know if the costs of
> > >such travel is proportionate. That is, I would expect it to cost less to
> > >take the train (being the slower service) than the plane.
> > >
> > >Over the route in question (Melbourne - Adelaide) is this the case?
> >
> > I would assume that rail probably be cheaper, provided it did not offer
> > wasteful services such as sleeping cars, club cars and full dining cars.
> > However, cheapness is not really an issue for most travellers by public
> > transport. By far the bulk of these travellers are business people who are
> > time sensitive and rail will never compete there with the limited traffic we
> > have in Aust.
> >
> > Barry Campbell
>
> Agreed - Qantas and Ansett have 18 to 20 fights at 120 - 130 seats
> between
> them every day on the Adelaide Melbourne sector and never seem to have
> too
> much trouble filling them. (and if they do they have promotional fares)
All that fighting. And I thought the wharves were bad! That's enough to
make someone almost want to take the train.
cheers Peter