I wonder if this idea should be generalised into the idea of no silver bullets generally. As global oil depletes the aviation industry will do it hard as will long distance road use and farming. Australia imported $34bn of liquid fuels last year. Some fancy that electric planes charged by solar panels will whisk us about. Or we patiently queue to charge up our electric buses by the roadside every 200km on long journeys. If that doesn't materialise what are the alternatives?

A plausible scenario is that we travel less, eat a lot of spuds grown locally and generally regress to a village economy. This may the future that awaits today's children.

It's heartening to read a reasoned argument against a popular cargo-cult wish.
Of course, many people would like the option of HSR if they lived in areas which would benefit from its inflexible rigidity of route choice, but I think that the issue is the needs difference between moving large numbers of people quickly, and large amounts of freight more slowly.
Like many other realms of modern technical evolution, new transportation methods are emerging, and in the not too distant future we may be placing far less reliance on cars, aircraft, ships and trains to move about.
Let's not rush into something which just might become as outdated as quickly as the NBN.

The hurdles? Professional naysayers who would see self-interest harmed by the decentralisation very rapid rail would create.

As for being profitable?

Well, the proposed route is along the third busiest domestic air route in the world and given the competition, this would bring to our domestic airline and haulage companies?

There's a huge cohort out there doing their very best to delay the inevitable and as they do so. Ensure the rollout costs double every decade these and similar nation-building projects are endlessly delayed! And not a question of if, but rather, when!

As for whether or not it's affordable? We have a 2.5 trillion super fund!

Infrastructure Australia would build it, but for government controls and prohibitions!?
Alan B.

Without any expert knowledge I have always doubted the VFT feasibility.
Air fares are so cheap it is almost a given.
As a occasional train traveler from Sydney to Melbourne I can see an
alternative project. The Fast Enough Rail.
It requires a considerable amount of work in relaying track perway
especially between Campbelltown and Goulburn.
These mainlines were built using horses and scoops. With modern earth
moving equipment the track could be straightened and high speed trains,
of which we already have them, could increase the speed to about 200km/hr.
The time to Melbourne could be halved and the towns between
given a better service.
It would also require building track to a higher standard than here.
The result would be a Sydney to Melbourne time only double that by air.
It takes me about four hours door to door. The fast enough train
would be about six or seven hours plus an hour getting to Central.
The XPTs in NSW are the same trains as the 125s in the UK.125 is MPH.

Of course the intention of the greens is to produce co2 regulations
or co2 taxes that will close airlines.

Thank you, Ross Elliott. An excellent article.

Those who promote or support concepts like this continue to ignore reality. Whether such a vehicle is used to transport passengers or freight over long distances with sparse populations, there is an unavoidable requirement to stop - frequently and probably for lengthy periods - to load and unload.

Since we're talking about three letter acronyms (TLAs), the stopping process will turn HSRs or VFTs into JATs (just another train).

How many more brain dead projects like the NBN and NDIS and now the HSR can the Australian taxpayer be expected to carry into the distant future? Is there any chance - ANY - that such a project would be completed on budget and on schedule? History tells us not, so cost-benefit analysis falls somewhere between extremely difficult and out of the question.

Bazz's "fast enough train" is a neat idea but lacks definition and fails examination: fast enough for whom? Well, fast enough for Bazz, apparently, but he's not the market. What is "fast enough" and compared to what?

Ross Elliott clearly knows very little about high speed rail. And I see calmest shares his greatest misconception.

Once you understand that not every train has to stop at every station, you'll see the regional benefits are much higher.