Individual, you have lost the plot.
A monorail it totally away with the fairies.

Imagine replacing Chullora with monorails, it would need four times
space and a vey complicated switching system.
Ahhh, wont spend anymore time on that.

Double stacked containers I believe go west from Parkes.
Unfortunately they can't come to Sydney because of the loading gauge.
A lot of freight goes by truck or trailers on rail flat cars in other
parts of the world. I think the automatic transfer system which is
much newer will be the way of the future.

Again today I saw a freight train going through the local station at
something like 80 or 90 km/hr with a very large number of containers
behind, I could not count fast enough and lost count but I got to 55
before half way. Anyone who sees that cannot possibly argue that
freight by road is better. Incidentally they mainly go at night, all night.

Where could the trucks & roads come from to handle all those containers if the railways were not there ?

it would need four times
space and a vey complicated switching system.
Bazz,
On what do you base that on ? You're starting to make me see why Australia is heading the way it is heading.

I am in the US and traveled along the western part of California - Chicago Line (Santa Fe Railway). It's two standard gauge lines like our Indian- Pacific line but takes 10 time the freight. Forty trains each way, up to 100 flat cars with double stacked 53 ft containers; sometimes whole 'Pantec' trailers on board. That line wouldn't have cost much more per km to build and maintain than our lines but look what it carries - that's cost effectiveness. Obviously they have got over the container transfer problem - that's not rocket science.

So yes, Everald, we need to use freight rail more and level the playing field by getting trucks to pay their way.

RE passenger rail yes Bazz 'fast enough' is good, say 200 kph max. Very fast rail is too expensive. Monorail not necessary as all the high speed trains go fines on normal rails and fast trains too expensive (agree with you there Hasbeen).

Elevating sections of the lines is the way, though, and also subways and tunnels. Manhattan electric subways were first opened about 1900. Long Island rail, which is mainly elevated in the denser suburbs, eliminating the need for level crossings, takes more than 300,000 passengers per day. Without it, the subways and increasingly bicycle lanes New York would grind to a halt - wouldn't be viable.

Closer to my home, when the Perth- Mandurah rail was being built some Luddites said it would be cheaper to put the few passengers in Hyundais and taxis them. Now it's already packed on rush hours because it's faster(140 kmh) and more comfortable than driving on the periodically gridlocked freeway that runs beside it. New suburbs are being built around it with values higher the closer to the rail.

PS Hasbeen as usual you're firmly rooted in the early part of the last century when it comes to your 'fossil fixations'; New York State already has about 40% carbon free electricity and there's a strong movement for mega- offshore wind farms here.

Individual;
Observation.

Roses1, when I worked in the Sydney CBD I loved rail. I could catch a train in Cronulla, read my paper, & arrive at work, with a few hundred yards walk each end. I hate driving in peak hour traffic, so left a car at the office to use for business transport.

This worked beautifully, while I worked in the city, when the company moved to somewhere near Fairfield, driving was the only way to get there in under 2.2 hours.

I am still waiting for some public transport lover to answer my main problem. How does a mother get one kid to child care & one to school on her way to work, & do the shopping on the way home, while picking them up, with widely scattered venues.

Our cities have been built with private transport available, & even old cities are now dependent on it. Public transport really only suits CBD workers, so why subsidies the public servants using them.

Individual, who is going to pay for these grandiose plans, if not shareholders. The tax payer sure can't afford public servants to do it. It would cost double the earth. A lot of the money building things is either superannuation fund money, or retirees money. Neither of these are philanthropic societies.

Funds need returns to pay their members, & to attract new members. I could easily be dead in less than 10 years. I want a return now. I'm about spending my kids inheritance now, not adding to it.

If as claimed Indian railways actually make money, great. They would be the only one on earth today that do. Building new ones really would be yet another exercise in losing money, & losing more faster.

who is going to pay for these grandiose plans, if not shareholders.
Hasbeen,
The main reasons why money is short is 1; the public service is way to large & 2; shareholders expect too large a slice of the profits in comparison to their investment 3; Negative gearing & general writing off from tax. This is money that should be there for infrastructure & essential services etc.
The whole show is out of whack with reality. It's getting this country to its knees. Foreign ownership of australian soil is something that'll bite us in the backside before long.
Plans are not grandiose at all, the only thing grandiose are the expectations of the shareholders & the lack of interest in changing this unsustainable mentality before it is too late.