Re: QR going national?

["Switched On" <yaropolk@hotmail.com>]

< Tell > <telljb@OZozemail.com.au> wrote in message
pZkCONkDDdpB4zMuAbK5yzFQ2sBL@4ax.com">news:pZkCONkDDdpB4zMuAbK5yzFQ2sBL@4ax.com...
> "MattyQ" <matticueQ@corplink.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > That's not the point I'm trying to make. All I ever hear is how stupid
> > narrow gauge is and how wonderful standard gauge is. Why is it then
that,
> > given that NSW is the only state that has 1435mm as its PRIMARY gauge,
> > Queensland still has longer, faster and heavier trains and a better
> > performance record than NSW? Why is it that QR has 80km/h turnouts
whereas
> > Victorian broad gauge, which as logic would dictate, should have higher
> > speed turnouts but only have 65km/h points as their fastest. Oh how
> > restricting narrow gauge is.
>
>
> Thanks to our colonial history we were lumbered with
> three gauges and like it or not, the standard gauge has
> become "the standard" on the Australian mainland, it
> has plenty of shortcomings and some of those are not
> likely to be resolved for a long time if ever, like
> parochial state politics and pathetic axle loads.

SG has shortcomings too, as anyone with any grey matter knows. Care to name
the most important two?

> The QR narrow gauge is an "isolated" railway simply
> because it is not "standard", there is nothing
> derogatory about that.

"By what measure" (I like that phrase) is SG more standard than NG? How many
Klms of SG are there in the country as opposed to NG? Not much difference in
mileage... maybe even slightly more in NG if you look at just freight
kilometrage only.

Really, I can't see guage being a great limiting factor to any practical
application. How much heavy freight is required to be shipped to Cairns or
Townsville ex Sydney and vice versa? In practise, the bulk of the freight is
in this country is being shipped to or from a port of some sort, of which
there are plenty. Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane are all ports, and are
indeed connected by your much-touted SG. But in addition, each can service
their local regional freight requirements to and from port using their local
guage. In practice, there has never been a requirement to ship heavy freight
between regional centres in different states. So what's the point of arguing
about this? There is no practical benefit of extending SG throughout the
Victorian or Queensland regional networks. The interstate network is a
different story, and i don't argue the use of SG there, just your ridiculous
argument that SG is automatically better.

NG serves the Qld regional communities well, and it's more flexible and
cheaper. You don't have major arteries going to all parts of your body, do
you? No, your blood vessels become smaller as they come closer to the
surface of your skin. There're good reasons for that.. and you know what
they are. Rail networks are not much different.

It makes good economic sense to use cost-effective and lower-risk network
design when you are operating amongst a decentralized and highly dispersed
population, doesn't it?