Right now on this very date it costs more generally to travel inter-city by train than it does by air.
Fast train will likely cost even more than slow train.

In any case, how many people would want to travel inter-city by fast train?
What numbers of people would be needed to keep a fast train viable?

Cost of such waste-of-money 'infrastructure' would be better spent on building newly productive infrastructure, such as to bring northern wet season water southwards to assists farmers and agriculture, while also boosting export agricultural produce and revenue especially.

Electrically powered fast trains use locally available fuel!

When a train stops there's considerable inconvenience. However, when the same thing happens in a plane, diabolical disaster!

Our east coast is the third busiest domestic air route in the world,virtually guaranteeing a profit making alternative service!

And overseas experience demonstrates only price gouging makes train travel more expensive!

Moreover, given construction would deliver you from CBD to CBD! Minus the time spent on gridlocked highways, followed by price gouged parking "EXPENSES"!

Sure fast trains are expensive infrastructure. however, if the wide corridors are resumed now, later urban land sales along the proposed route, would all but repay any outlays?

And given government can raise money for half the cost of private operators, it should be funded off budget by government.

Any and all cost blowouts prevented by a tendering process and contracts that include madatory penalty clauses for exceeding the contractual project time limits!

And given every decade of delay literally doubles construction costs, there's simply no time to waste with this style of endless prevarication or obfuscation.

Neither should one try to discount the huge boost (trillions) to our economy such a project would create and on a par with the impossibly expensive and entirely unaffordable "VISIONARY" fully paid for, income earning Snowy Mountains scheme.

And back then, wasn't there an absolute plethora of experts whose only claim to fame, was to know all the reasons it could be done or wouldn't work!?

If I were planning such a project, it would be a faster than jet planes VLT project; and built in much safer tunnels or shallow covered trenches, even if that meant importing Chinese technology and technical expertise!

Do it right the first time, means not having to do it again just a few decades down the track, when comparable construction costs have trebled! A fibre to the node NBN anyone? Rhrosty.

Fast Public Rail Intercity Transport is a waste of money. The only people who travel on that type of transport are Pensioners & Concession holders or Tourists, but they want a slow train. The Government pays for them. The Government is obligated to provide safe cheap travel for those people.

I worked in Wagon Maintenance for 26 years. As a Slings Man, Crane Driver, Brake Down Gang, Fitter, Turner, Boilermaker, Electrician, Carpenter, Manager. Now retired. :-)

High Speed Rail Freight is cost effective. Each Train would remove approximately 100 Semi-trailers of the Highways. Making road travel safer & less wear & tear on the Roads. Rail Hubs, such as the proposed Stuart near Townsville, & Bromilton near Beaudesert in Queensland are the future of Freight. Trucks do the distribution from there.

Hi there JAYB...

Your last paragraph made a whole lot of commonsense for sure, place most of your heavy freight on rail, and save both our rickety old roads and a few human lives. Still the word commonsense is most uncommon in Canberra!

100 semi trailers at $3,000 each load per day is $300,000.00.
What would be the daily interest payable for a multi billion fast train railway and operation?

Think about the interstate trucking industry and family livelihood that would be lost if rail replaces interstate trucks.

If roads are not improved for CARS and TRUCKS, why not use b-double roll-on roll-off fast super ships that already exist?

High speed rail in a country of such long distances and relatively small population could cause huge loss.

Surely Australia needs newly productive export product and revenue, for example to replace the now defunct "living off the sheep's back" wool industry?

JF, YOU keep making your surely comments that ignore reality, namely the service would be rolled out as an (virtually self funded) alternative to air travel on the domestic air route that is the third busiest in the world, only a moron with an IQ below the Ambient temperature, would persist with this endlessly trotted out verbal garbage.

And those trying to make comparisons to rickety old urban trains, loaded with old age pensioners and concession card holders are comparing the model T ford to a tesla electric sports car.

It just doesn't wash and almost as germane to the article as exorbitant airport parking fees.

Some of those old fogies fly as well, own the bulk of our real estate and bank accounts; and given a very fast capital to capital train service not affected by storm or tempest or gridlocked traffic, nor volcanic ash, would prefer it as the most desirable option.

And as a voting demography have the power to change recalcitrant non compliant government!

Make no mistake, this train will be built and go on to earn it's own keep while paying its way!

Always providing this or that government or local authority doesn't use it as their personal ATM, or try to privatise once operational and profitable!
Rhrosty.

We are still talking about high speed rail because people like Rhosty run off at the mouth without proof of what they say.

Who would "self fund" a non profitable 'alternative' transport system for which no cost and profit figures have been proved?

Yes no problem with volcanic ash that can bring aircraft down but what about storms and floods that undermine bridges and piles involving rail lines?
What about kids or terrorists doing their thing with rail or the system?

Anyway, just show the cost versus profit.

Show the viability instead of waffle about IQ and verbal garbage.
That saying is very true, "what you say is what you are".

Give us some numbers, Rhosty, cost versus profit instead of waffle about IQ and pensioners.

It amuses me how people go on about fast rail, yet they forget a few simple facts.

1. Our labour cost are $30 per hour start up (value added cost) compared to a few dollars.

2. Our population is minuscule in comparison to most countries that have fast trains so the economics don't stack up. People are already whinging about parking and the likes, so I doubt they will pay for fast rail. No doubt travers will also have to pay for parking as well especially if your travel involves a stop over, similar to most plane trips.

3. The airlines will not sit back and watch their markets slip away, so a price war would be imminent and he who has the deepest pockets will win.

4. Until we rid our nation of the entitlement mentality, nothing like this will work because they want it for free as they have the attitude 'but I pay my taxes'. Toll roads going broke are a prime example.

5. It stands to reason that with such a small population, two forms of high speed transport will be competing and there will not be enough customers to feed both.

Dream on!

JF Aus,

Train ticket pricing is likely to be similar to the air ticket pricing, albeit with a lower cost to make up for rail's slightly lower overall speed. Prices would be much higher at some times of day than others. Many people would want to travel intercity by fast train (as overseas experience has proved) and the fast trains would also serve places that don't have good air services.

Spending money in one part of Australia should not preclude spending money in another part of Australia.

While not of great relevance to high speed rail, if rail replaces interstate trucks then nearly everyone's better off. Freight costs will be lower, so businesses will be more competitive so can afford to employ more people. And some trucks will still be needed to get freight from the surrounding area to the rail terminal.

Fast ships aren't usually commercially viable. AIUI the Spirit of Tasmania requires significant operating subsidies.

Australia's population is growing rapidly. Sydney to Melbourne is the world's third busiest air route, The population of our major cities is more than enough to justify high speed rail between them, and once that gets built many more people will choose to live in places along the route. As a long term investment it will be very profitable, though if they try to recoup their money too quickly they'll go broke like those greedy toll road operators. BTW Trains are not labour intensive.

Parking is unlikely to be an issue, as it will serve the existing main railway stations in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. And parking costs at intermediate stations are unlikely to be anywhere near those of our major cities or airports.

The competition from trains will make Sydney-Melbourne flights permanently less profitable. Though they will continue to compete for market share, they're more likely to direct their main focus to more profitable routes.

Of course Australia needs newly productive export product and revenue. By increasing connectivity, trains would enhance that not preclude it.

Adian: Train ticket pricing is likely to be similar to the air ticket pricing,

My guess is that you have never been on a long distance train. It costs $507 plus $96 for a sleeper, Brisbane to Cairns. The Ghan is nearly $2000. It's cheaper to fly even for Pensioners. God only knows what the Trans is.

Freight is the only thing that Rail is good for. It's the most economical way to transport good around Australia. The Townsville to one of the towns on the Western Australian Coast was planned 50 years ago. I have a map with the proposed line marked on it. Ending just short of the Coast. They couldn't decide which town would be the terminus. The Darwin to Bromilton to West of Sydney & on to Melbourne will eventually be built. I remember seeing some of the planning for it before I retired in 2000. Still it could be a long time before it's built.

I remember passing the Port Pirie Rail Yard in 85 & seeing the infrastructure for the Darwin to Adelaide line. One of the Workers there told me that all the Infrastructure had been sitting there for 20 years waiting for the go ahead & for the Government in Office at the time to claim it was their idea. Big projects take forever in Australia.

As one of the attractions of high speed rail is that the trains don't stop very often, why would any one want to live between stations?

Aiden, even if you do send freight via rail, you still need trucks to take it to the destination, besides, once you remove the bulk of the trucks, those left will have a monopoly and charge accordingly.

Hi speed rail in this country where we can no longer afford to build anything is simply a dream.

and if high speed rail is to replace the majority of trucks then there will need to be many freight depots along the line, thus ensuring many stops. Then passengers will want to get off closer to home so we'd end up with a conventional railway and we already have those.

Your guess is wrong, Jayb. I've been on the Ghan from Adelaide to Alice Springs and back (this was before it was extended to Darwin). And in 1999 I travelled around much of Eastern Australia by train (Adelaide–Broken Hill–Sydney–Canberra–Sydney–Murwillumbah–Sydney–Melbourne–Adelaide). But the train companies have responded poorly to the rise of the low cost airlines, so all the interstate journeys I've made since then have been by air.

The very high prices of sleeping compartments on the Ghan is irrelevant to how much a seat on a high speed train would cost. Making rail more competitive with air requires a lot more passengers to bring economies of scale.

Freight is not the only thing that rail is good for in Australia, but improving rail freight services can provide a much quicker economic return than high speed rail.

What was the objective of the Queensland to WA line proposal 50 years ago?

Where is Bromilton?

__________________________________________________________________________________

rehctub, who said anything about a monopoly?

We can afford to build things, but we choose not to because some politicians have fooled the public into thinking budgetary outcomes are more important than real improvements.

Aiden, what makes you think we can afford to build things when our labour costs are ridiculously high, compared to other countries with HSR.

Besides, we are now paying the price for a government that thought they knew best and threw money willi nilly at projects or brain farts that failed one after the other, mainly due to incompetence in the implementation and management of these projects. And that was at a time when we had money to burn. Those days are history.

So let's say we do build a HST network. We send a fast train to the likes of Bris, Can, Syd or Mel, then we take those passengers and ferry them off on the existing train network that is often running at well above capacity. Either that, or we congest put more hire cars on an already congested road network because to have a high speed rail, means millions more will have to arrive at stations that are arriving now.

Of cause the real problem nobody wants to visit is that of huge competition from the airlines as they won't just accept the fat that a huge share of their business will diminish.

As for a monopoly, I am the one suggesting a monopoly would be produced simply because once you send most of the trucks packing, many being small owners that would loose their houses, those left could pretty much name their price because the freight still has to be taken from the rail depot to its destination.

Im telling you, it's a dream.

Adain: Where is Bromilton?

JB: & Bromilton near Beaudesert in Queensland.

Adain: Your guess is wrong, Jayb.

Then you know that Train Travel is ridiculously expensive compared to Air Travel, especially if you get the bargains & don't take the frills. Let's face it Air Travel is just like a bus ride from the Suburbs into the City. Do you really need a meal?

I really don't know why they are pushing Public Transport unless it's to service the Pensioners & Concession holders. I can't see "Millions" of people using the Service at all.

Fast freight is the only sensible way to go. As for Road Transport, those people will adapt. Adaption happens with any change, usually for the better in the long run. Fears of people losing their houses etc is a furphy. I suppose some will. Those who can't adapt, but that's normal within the shakeout.

It happened in the Sugar Industry when Harvesters took over from Cane Cutters. Kids in Small Towns got Apprenticeships to fix the Harvesters instead of having the hard slog of cutting Cane by hand. Just one example. The itinerant workers settled down in towns instead of raising large families in Caravans & traveling from one end of Australia to the other with different School Systems.

Jayb one kid fixing a harvester that replaces dozens of men is hardly what I would call adapting.

As for losing their house, if an owner operator goes into debt for a truck at say $750K, they usually pledge their house as well and if they lose their contract, which could happen if interstate freight turns to HS rail, they face losing their houses as well, especially if there are no buyers for their truck.

rehcub: Jayb one kid fixing a harvester that replaces dozens of men is hardly what I would call adapting.

Not exactly what happened. the Gang of four, usually, turned into Harvester operator, Haul out Driver, Cleaner upper, Motor Mechanic, Fitter, Turner, Boilermaker, New Business managers, Salesmen & a few other professions on top of that. So the reality is that four itinerants labourers became higher educated & better paid in the long run. Yes there was an interim period of shake out but in the end these people were much better off.

A quick check:
NSW Countrylink: BROKEN HILL XPLORER TRAIN CLK445
Monday 21 March 2016 [only Mondays :-( ]
Mon 06:18 Depart Sydney (Central)
Mon 19:10 Arrive Broken Hill

Economy $138.34
First Class $192.54

While cheapest flight found $348 not on the same date.

Well rare agreement with Adian, and given every decade of delay doubles rollout costs, we just don't need to waste more time, listening to the delaying tactics of disingenuous vested interest.

Of course we would need to make a sound business case!

I've seen a business case that claims for every dollar invested in a very fast train, we will, given normal multiplier factors, create 2.3 dollars worth of new economic activity.

And that is before a single passenger is ferried anywhere!

Japanese VLT bullet trains travel at speeds up to 600 KLMPH.

Nothing prevents us designing double decker carriages that comfortably seat as much as a fully loaded 747? And transport them in trains two kilometres long! Tyranny of distance being a factor that serves the profit motive in a number of ways, one being the availability of local fuel! Solar thermal, thorium.

Some investment banks have bought Airports! And and like some marginal airlines, would see their profit margins disappear with the advent of lower costing very fast CBD to CBD train travel!

Hence the hysteria and patently mendacious obfuscation? And we should also roll out a freight specific fast train, which only needs to average speeds of 150 KMPH, to run the pants of overnight long haul trucking companies.

Idealy they would be double deckers two kilometre long. And run inside fenced corridors that are crossed by overpasses or underpasses, where wandering animals (domestic and wild) are concerned?

Only shipping can move bulk freight for less cost than trains. And bulk freight remains one of the most profitable business models in the world. Hence the handsome and reliable dividends!

And the best possible reason to build a shipping line that matches/serves our fast freight trains with fast roll on roll off nuclear powered ferries, that could be built to a scale that accommodates whole trains! We could pocket the handsome profits, (consolidated revenue) and then provide unmatchable competition for bulk freight!?

And given that is the preferred pragmatism, create turnaround times of just a couple of hours?
Rhosty.

That sounds just great for those that want to send freight from Melbourne to Sydney and Brisbane and vice versa, but what do all the towns in-between do?

rehctub,

"what makes you think we can afford to build things when our labour costs are ridiculously high, compared to other countries with HSR."
The fact that labour costs do not dominate the total cost. And our labour costs are not ridiculously high compared to those of Japan (one of the world leaders in HSR). Indeed the countries that have HSR are generally the same ones that have high wages.

"Besides, we are now paying the price for a government that thought they knew best and threw money willi nilly at projects or brain farts that failed one after the other, mainly due to incompetence in the implementation and management of these projects. And that was at a time when we had money to burn. Those days are history."
That's just government spin, barely a single grain of truth! The government have the ability to spend as much money as they want to. They choose not to, either for political reasons (trying to paint the opposition as irresponsible) or because they themselves are clueless about what governments are capable of doing and the economic consequences of doing so.

Central and Southern Cross have good bus and tram services as well as train services, and are within walking distance of a significant proportion of destinations. The passengers connecting onto the VFTs would only be a small proportion of the total, there's plenty of capacity for most of the day, and its unlikely the VFTs would require the existing railways to make any capacity upgrades that wouldn't also be needed without them. Also, it's planned to include another suburban stop (such as Glenfield) to allow suburban passengers to catch the VFT without having to go into the CBD.

There would be competition from the airlines, but they would not obsess over market share on what would cease to be a very profitable route. But they'll be OK, as they fly plenty of routes not served by high speed rail.

Your monopoly suggestion involves an abrupt event that sends most of the trucks packing, followed by an extreme overreaction. Extremely unlikely IMO.

JB,

Thanks. On my map the spelling is Bromelton.

I know that currently in Australia, long distance rail tickets are overpriced. But I also know that's not an intrinsic feature of long distance rail, and high speed rail is very competitive in Europe.

I'm not suggesting doing anything that precludes fast freight.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Rhosty,

Unless you count an articulated trainset as a single carriage (and most passengers certainly wouldn't) the need to fit on the tracks prevents us from designing double decker carriages that comfortably seat as much as a fully loaded 747.

Why the arbitrary figure of 2km for train length?

What Japanese Maglevs have managed on a test track is irrelevant.

VFTs will never make airport profits disappear, as the trains and planes would only serve a small number of origin-destination pairs. And for some long journeys like Melbourne to Brisbane, most passengers are likely to prefer to fly even if VFTs do run.

And nuclear powered ferries are far too expensive to be practical.

I think a possible reason light rail and high speed rail is being pushed is to stimulate the ore and steel industries. But water could do that too. Water in conjunction with rail could be very viable.

If major media editors encouraged investigative reporting and debate it would become obvious there are numerous ways to use more steel, for example to transport water long distances without seepage and without much evaporation. Water supply can build communities and towns.

I think high speed rail could be harnessed side by side with steel aqueduct, for example aqueduct to bring otherwise wasted water southwards from the northern Queensland wet season region.
Water is a productive money making and employment and business generating resource.

Water can be harvested in high country before reaching rivers. Remote control can hold back excess water instead of so much water being wasted in the Gulf of Carpentaria or east coast ocean.
Rivers flowing inland, to Lake Eyre for example, must not be touched. Aqueduct can flow over the top of natural rivers. Managed water could help drought impacted wetlands.

Similar structure suits water and rail, both are heavy, both have incline problems in common.
Trains are most suited to level or slightly downhill ground, like water is without pumping.

From the high Gregory Range area of northern Queensland and following the western slope contours of the Great Dividing Range, water in aqueduct could flow downhill into the Murray Darling catchment and all the way to the water-starved Coorong in South Australia. It’s not impossible.

Modern construction technology can even suspend or support concrete bridges across valleys, harbors and gaping estuaries.
Epoxy coated camouflaged steel can be quite light in comparison to reinforced concrete.

I think a similar aqueduct system could be developed in NSW. Coastal river water from high great divide country could tunnel down to a western slope aqueduct and high speed rail route - system.

Nothing sensible and profitable is impossible, except getting the knockers to prove their ‘reasoning’.

JFAus: Water can be harvested in high country before reaching rivers.

Arh... Wouldn't the Greenies love that. ;-)

JFAus: Rivers flowing inland, to Lake Eyre for example, must not be touched.

The could be utilized to bring some water down benefiting the people along the way.

Jayb,

Yes, the greenies.
The greenies seem to ignore ocean ecosystems.
Whales and seabirds and fish are experiencing lack of adequate nutrition and are dying due to starvation.
Greenies seem oblivious to the actual state of the marine environment generally, especially the ecosystems. Many key rivers and lakes are being used as sewers, especially in Europe.
Genuine greenies might encourage sensible water harvesting to manage life-saving water supply.

Management of water is needed to rehabilitate entire ocean and waterway ecosystems.
Comparison of the need can be likened to dire need for a heart blockage bypass or even an artificial heart to sustain life.

Experience on Gulf of Carpentaria catchment indicates major excesses of wet season water fall and flow down gulf country rivers to the sea, causing massive catchment soil erosion. Some erosion is natural, some is also not natural due to feral animals and more severe weather.

Remote controlled quantities of wet season rainfall could be harvested off the top of the catchment to reduce the excess before erosion and waste occurs.
Rivers would still run because of rainfall on downstream catchment.

Water must not be harvested from catchment of rivers flowing inland, such as water from slopes of the Great Dividing Range that flows to Lake Eyre.

But yes, a water harvesting and aqueduct system could include added infrastructure to allow flood-type flows into rivers running inland. A slow dribble-like flow leads to soakage and evaporation.

Greenies and the UN would do well to realize whole oceans and whole of water ecosystems need management. There cannot be peace between nations suffering food and productive land shortages.
The UN has mandate to unite nations. There is need for more than just words.

I think the UN and WB and IMF must provide interest free resources to nations willing to participate in developing productive viable infrastructure to sustain water quality and life on this planet.
New monetary stimulus is needed, including to operate the UN.

I think high or low speed rail coupled with water infrastructure could be very viable.

Chinese scientists are reportedly experimenting with a VLT, that might nudge 3,000 KLMPH, and there is talk such a system could use evacuated tunnels to launch low orbit satellites. Something I've always thought of as a possibility if it included railguns as launch assisting catapults? Electric railguns have a top speed of just under the speed of light!

In my concept, we'd build a VLT that serves us for several centuries, and be built along dead straight lines inside tunnels or shallow covered trenches, invisible from the air or surrounding topography.

Moreover, the fact we'd use tunnels or trenches, would enable some of the whisper quiet magnetic resistance to be deployed horizontally along the sides, to increase stability.

An underground system could be sealed and evacuated to eliminate the only speed limiting resistance as occurs now when bullet trains and planes push through air that becomes increasingly solid with ever greater speed.

Each train would in essence, orbit around a central dividing separation barrier, and every train using that airlocked elliptical loop, would either be following another train at matching speed or parked on a service or maitenance or load line area. And parked there until loaded then inserted via an airlock into the anti clockwise orbit at a safe distance from all other preceding or following traffic and at matched speeds. Matched before entering the main line and as you exit from it?

Moreover, given the absence of air almost any speed or deceleration you like that could be safely tolerated by the passengers?

This evacuated system would be mostly interstate passenger specific, while freight, concession card holders and old fogies, would use other lines and conventional double decker trains, more or less?

The business case for that, implicit on the amount of freight now lumbering up clogged interstate highways, and the fact that bulk freight is without question the most profitable business model in the world!

Mine would Travel along the Great Dividing range and then use just gravity to deliver sections to a final predetermined destination. Eliminating most of the time consuming shunting of conventional train freight?

JFAus: Water must not be harvested from catchment of rivers flowing inland, such as water from slopes of the Great Dividing Range that flows to Lake Eyre.

Nope! The Rail line from Townsville to Mt Isa Is built on the Northern side of the High ground. It was built on the High Ground but got washed 3 Km to the North by a sudden downpour in about 1978.

All rivers north of the line flow North to the Gulf. The Burdekin Catchment extends from West of the Divide behind Ingham West to just West of Charters Towers to behind the Divide behind Rockhampton. (Sutter, Bogie & Boyne.) All Rivers South West of Rockhampton behind the Divide flow to the Murray. The Rivers from Charters Towers West flow to Lake Eyre. The Furthest North of these Creeks is Torrens Creek. Mapped by the Chinese in 1345, According to the Map in the Taiwanese Historical Museum.

And so endeth the Geography Lesson for today.

Rhosty,

I think it wise to add some evidence of what you are talking about because many people could consider you a dreamer, when you are not.

http://www.gizmag.com/1800mph-maglev/32213/

JB,

Thank you for a good Geography lesson. I now see there may be more water available than I envisaged.
But those longer inland rivers running to the Gulf may require all the upper catchment water they can get in order to supply the upper river country.

The river or catchment I was referring to as an example is the Thomson Creek catchment that runs into the Diamantina River and to Lake Eyre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamantina_River

JFAus: The river or catchment I was referring to as an example is the Thomson Creek catchment that runs into the Diamantina River and to Lake Eyre.

I think you'd be hard pressed to do anything with that waterway. When it's not flooded It's a dry as a bone. The Reservoir would have to be out at Diamantina Lakes in South Australia. Those Rivers only run every 5 or 6 years then nothing. Even North of the T'ville to Mt.Isa line to the Gulf there is nowhere to Reservoir the Water, it's a flat as a tack. I suppose you could dam some Gorges in the Gregory Ranges but getting there & getting the water out would be a Master Problem.

Putting the top on the Burdekin Dam would be a good start. It already holds 16 times more water than Sydney Harbour. With the top on it supposed to triple that amount. That was the idea of the Hydro Scheme but they filled in the Machinery Rooms with Concrete a few years ago. Still, even that future water is spoken for by the land between Home Hill & Bowen. All the Navy Beans for making Baked Beans comes from the Burdekin. As do Watermelons, Sweet Corn, Beans, Rock Melons, Honey Dew & a few others as well as the Sugar up as far as Delbeg.

JF Aus,

If we want to save our country's steel industry, we should invest very heavily in molten oxide electrolysis research, not select steel for jobs it's not cost effective in.

High speed rail has very different requirements to water pipelines. It can't manage tight curves and it needs to go where the passengers want to, whereas water pipelines can curve as tightly as roads but have to start from a dam or pumping station. No doubt some time in the future we will need more pipelines in some parts of Australia, but you seem to be treating it as a solution looking for a problem and not caring how bad suited it is to the one you've found.

I agree we should be very wary of diverting rivers to and from the Lake Eyre basin, as it may adversely affect some fish species there.

What makes you think the Greenies ignore ocean ecosystems? They've been concerned about overfishing far longer than the general population. And it's rare for lack of adequate nutrition to be the limiting factor, though it can happen when the sea creatures eat plastic.

"Many key rivers and lakes are being used as sewers, especially in Europe."
You seem to be living in the '70s! They've spent many billions cleaning up their lakes and rivers since then.

"Genuine greenies might encourage sensible water harvesting to manage life-saving water supply."
They do, but they might be a lot more cautious than you when determining what's sensible.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Rhosty,

An evacuated system would be orders of magnitude more expensive and would present great technical challenges (for instance, how would they cool the trains down?)

It certainly wouldn't be economic for bulk freight, or even the freight that currently goes by road. And there's not much shunting of freight on Australian railways nowadays - it's mostly trainload from terminal to terminal.

JF, Thanks mate, suggest you take a bopeep at www.gizmag.com for the latest relevent info.

Aidan, what makes you think there'd be any heat generated by a completely frictionless system.



Over the lifetime of a fast ferry a nuclear powered variant that only needs to be fueled once every 25 years, is going to be cheaper to run than any diesel powered variant.

What do you think diesel is going to cost 20 years from now? Moreover given relevant sizes, nuclear powered aircraft carriers and subs have reportedly been able to nudge 40-50 knots!?

They'd likely outperform any of the diesel powered variants, and given modern and vastly safer pebble reactors could conceivably be mass produced as relatively small modules and then trucked to where they are needed, vastly cheaper than the old and more expensive variant you are thinking about or have links to Aidan!

Conventional trains and that is not what my mind is, unlike yours Aidan, not locked onto, have rotating bogies on turntables at both ends and given a reasonably straight track, are able to turn without needing to be articulated!

However given I'm in favor of a VLT and built from the ground up and operating inside its own purpose created carriageway, it can be as wide, tall and as long as we want.

And for passengers primarily not bulk freight which would need a very different system. Which instead of stopping at every whistle stop, would simply release a wagon or two and at speed, from the tail a couple of klicks ahead of the exit line, and use gravity and switching to move them to the unloading platform, to effectively outperform trucking every which way?

Otherwise whole trains could be loaded as entire double decker container trains on the aforementioned fast ferries, to then link with other comparable standard gauge lines at foreign ferry terminals, and on to our preferred markets. And given that is the preferred paradigm, replete with record turnaround times!
Rhrosty.

Post limit has had me stymied.

Jayb,
I have said to leave the Thomson catchment alone, do not touch it.
You apparently have expert knowledge of these rivers and their fall in the region. I hope we can keep in touch.

Reservoir's would be built as part of the water harvesting and aqueduct system. The only problem I envisage is sandy soil that would require clay lining. It's been done on slopes of the Great Dividing Range.

Getting water out is possible using aqueduct, not pipes, not by pumping.
Getting in and out is less difficult than getting into and out of outer space. Look into the Qld Development Road for example.
I made a submission aboiut this aqueduct concept to the Aust govt, (search): Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper, see Supporting Information - Green Paper - Index 'F' Fairfax JC.

You refer to Burdekin produce. Produce from the Burdekin indicates to me that increase in produce from increase in water supply could justify an inland international freight airport to Asia especially during their winter. Central and southern Qld is not cyclone prone as is the north. Wind and rain wiping out crops is obviously a handicap.

I very much appreciate discussing this with you.

Due to word limit I will make another post to reply to Aidan. But special thanks to OLO anyway for whatever time and space.
Cheers.

Rhosty,

"Aidan, what makes you think there'd be any heat generated by a completely frictionless system."
Mainly the fact that the passengers themselves generate heat. Also the electrical resistance and magnetic friction. Plus the imperfection of the vacuum through which it runs.

"Over the lifetime of a fast ferry a nuclear powered variant that only needs to be fueled once every 25 years, is going to be cheaper to run than any diesel powered variant."
What assumptions are you using? And does your figure include disposal of the waste?

"What do you think diesel is going to cost 20 years from now?"
Probably less than it will 10 years from now, as some of it will be synthesised from CO2 and water rather than made from oil.

"However given I'm in favor of a VLT and built from the ground up and operating inside its own purpose created carriageway, it can be as wide, tall and as long as we want."
The wider, taller and longer you want it, the more it will cost. And the distance from the carriage to the magnets on curves would limit its length.

"And for passengers primarily not bulk freight which would need a very different system. Which instead of stopping at every whistle stop, would simply release a wagon or two and at speed, from the tail a couple of klicks ahead of the exit line, and use gravity and switching to move them to the unloading platform, to effectively outperform trucking every which way?"
Are you still referring to maglev? Or rail?

At the moment there's no need for freight trains to stop at "every whistle stop". But releasing a wagon or two (at speed or otherwise) generally doesn't make economic sense in Australia.

You seem to be obsessed with getting everything there faster, but generally that's not what the freight customers want; reliability is.

Aiden, costs are just one part of the equation, as population is our main hurdle, that, along with the proven fact that our people don't like paying for things, toll road failures being proof of that.

If you build a HSR service from Brisbane to Melbourne, and compared that with Japan, if that's even possible, how many potential passengers will each rail link service. Do that sum and the answer will be loud and clear, its simply an unaffordable dream, always has been and always will be in the future because so many people today rely on the 3 out of 10 to pick up the slack and pay the bills.

Chances are that if we ever did see a FSR built, the entitlement brigade would whinge so loud that they would get a subsidized ticket, for which the high end would also have to subsidise.

A dog chasing its tail im afraid.

Aidan,
I think productive use of steel would warrant government investment in modern steel milling for local and export supply. Eg. my car is a 1986 imported Japanese parts model and still has the original exhaust system. Australian steel exhaust lasts about 5 years. Also, I understand steel legs under Bass Strait oil rigs are made of Japanese steel because Australian made steel does not last as long.
Whatever the process, better quality steel is needed, especially now for high speed rail coupled with aqueduct.

I am not talking about pipelines. Comprehend my words. I am talking about aqueduct. Aqueduct does not handle sharp turns either. And I reiterate, no pumping would be required. In fact small hydro power plants may be possible.

Greenie ‘ignorance’?
Ocean ecosystems are continuing to be devastated and destroyed without green news comment.
Marine Protected Areas do not stop sewage and land use nutrient overload pollution, nutrient overload that over 30 years independent investigative general research shows is the fundamental cause of algae that is smothering seagrass and coral and causing dead zones.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100305-baltic-sea-algae-dead-zones-water/

Overfishing is not the actual problem, the problem is too much nutrition, too much nutrient, nutrient overload, nutrient pollution. That’s why 30 years of fishing restrictions have fundamentally failed to rehabilitate fish populations generally.
Marine animals eat plastic because they are starving, nothing else in the vicinity to eat. Numerous scientists suspect that. I have a case of evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

No to my living in the past. The evidence is clear.
Recent sewage ‘treatment’ rolls off lumps and filters some particles, condoms, nappies, tomato seeds and even the occasional diamond ring.
Subsequently outfall water clarity is improved but the nutrient loading bonded to the water remains and flows UNMANAGED down rivers into coastal ocean surface currents that flow into estuary ecosystems including GBR coral/lagoon waters.
Fresher water tends to the surface and is drawn and pushed by tides and winds, including long distance.

I am very cautious. Aqueduct plus rail could generate viability.

And thank you, Aidan, for your conversation. Please don’t hesitate to continue.

JFAus: Central and southern Qld is not cyclone prone as is the north. Wind and rain wiping out crops is obviously a handicap.

Actually Cyclones are not really a problem. They get one every very few years where-as Southern Queensland suffers from very severe Storm Cells which come through every few week in season.

JFAus: Getting water out is possible using aqueduct, not pipes, not by pumping.

They use a combination of Creeks, Aqueducts, Artesian Pumping & Pipes to ferry water around the Burdekin. The Water level around the Burdekin is about 10 Metres. The Water comes, originally from West Papua & takes 10 million years to get there. Actually most of that underground water comes up inside the Great Barrier Reef. If you travel by Yacht inside the GBR there are places you can drink fresh water straight out of the Ocean. You know when you have run into fresh water, your Yacht will drop about a foot. (Valency) That water could be tapped easily.

rechub: the entitlement brigade would whinge so loud that they would get a subsidized ticket, for which the high end would also have to subsidise.

Agreed. Oh, I have a QRail Pass for Life, 26 years in the Railways will get you that. Not that I ever use it, about twice a year on the Brisbane Suburban lines, if that.

JF Aus,

Australian steel mills tend to specialise in high strength steel. We could make the very corrosion resistant steel ourselves if we wanted to, but it would probably be hopelessly uneconomic because there's so little domestic demand.

Open channel aqueducts do have one advantage over pipelines: their smaller hydraulic radius makes them slightly more efficient. However this is usually outweighed by the considerable disadvantages of more evaporation loss and the need for a route that's downhill all the way. That's the hard part. Fortunately tight curves aren't a great problem (though they do adversely affect efficiency).

Aqueduct requirements are totally different to high speed rail requirements, where tight curves must be avoided but gradients are much less of a problem than for heavy haul rail.

Baltic sea hypoxia is a common occurrence, and has been for over a century. Though the 2010 dead zones were a serious problem, there was no need for Greenies to cause a great fuss, as the surrounding countries had already agreed to, and were implementing, a plan to reduce Baltic nutrient loading.

Overfishing is one of the actual problems, and it affects much greater areas than nutrient overload does.. And fish don't just eat plastic because they're starving, but because it's there!

Modern sewage treatment's multi stage, and treatment systems that deal with the nutrients are available and in common use.

There are places Australia needs more railways. There are also places in Australia that need more water, and there may be some of them where aqueducts could do the job better than pipelines. But that's unrelated to the railways, and not suited to using rail alignments.

________________________________________________________________________________

rehctub, Sydney and Melbourne both have populations over 4 million and are rapidly increasing. There's already over thirteen million people in the Brisbane-Sydney-Canberra–Melbourne corridor, and growth potential's very high.

Although our VFT route wouldn't serve anywhere near as many people as the Tokaido Shinkansen, it seems to compare pretty well with the Hokkaido Shinkansen which is currently under construction.

Constructing a VFT would make more work available, so more people would pay the bills.

Jayb,

The more cyclones and storms the better.

I doubt it takes 10 million years for water to come underground from PNG.
What keeps going in must comes out.
I have heard of PNG water at Mullumbimby or Murwillumbah.
Anyway it needs pumping up from ground level or sea level.

And I consider a yacht would sink an inch or two but not a foot, but maybe you are correct.

Good to see you have been with the railways 25 years.
I appreciate your experience.

Aidan,

Domestic demand can sometimes be generated. Railways previously built economies of nations and can stimulate economies - surely.

Downhill all the way from the Gregory Range to the Coorong in SA is possible, the Murray Darling catchment already runs to SA from central Queensland.

I consider downhill from Gregory Range can be achieved by following contour’s of the Great Dividing Range, dropping half-a-spirit-level-bubble along the way.
Use Google earth to assess Gregory Range elevation and the elevation at central southern Queensland.
The fall is easily possible, far more compared to the Darling from Qld to SA.

Think the other way around, think whether aqueduct could possibly suit high speed rail alignment and elevated construction.
Anyway conventional rail could follow contours as it often does already.
Inland rail freight from NQ to Melbourne would be very beneficial there and back, if there is water for new towns and agriculture and employment along the way.
Not all water need go down the Darling River.

Also, it’s not beyond realms of possibility to float cargo down the aqueduct and truck empty containers back. Not high speed though. LOL.

Aidan you are dealing with fire on ocean issues.
I first reported world fish devastation occurring in 1982 and that was followed by EEZ law and aquaculture policy.

Now I am dealing with solutions that include whole-of water-ecosystem-management involving aqueduct and perhaps heavy inland rail to carry produce including the other way to Asia.

It is protein deficiency malnutrition among seafood dependent Pacific island friends that is driving me. Has been since 1982.
On international Womens Day 2016, I heard of 5,000 dead babies and 1,500 dead women per year from maternal mortality in PNG, that I submit is linked at least in part to protein deficiency malnutrition (not starvation).
It's all worsening, unchecked.
What have you heard from greenies about local fish availability or not for island people?

For 6 months of the year I live in Solomon Sea, Pacific Islands waters.

Continued when Post Limit allows…………………..

JF and JB,

Where did you get the idea that any water travels under the sea from Papua to mainland Queensland? AIUI Queensland's rainfall is what fills all its rivers and its section of the Great Artesian Basin, apart form the small amount that flows in from NSW and the NT.

Cont’d………… Aidan

Australian media is not keeping you up to date about ocean AND waterway dead zones.
You seem to think dead zones are a thing of the past. They are not. They are worsening.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ocean-dead-zones-are-getting-worse-globally-due-climate-change-180953282/?no-ist

Published articles usually fail to mention government dumped sewage nutrient, usually it’s only runoff mentioned. Yet it is the total nutrient loading that proliferates excessive algae that causes the damage.

Photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean algae was not assessed in AGW, IPCC, and Kyoto associated science. Yet plant matter has insulation and warmth retaining properties, including water saturated algae plant matter, feel a mat of algae on top of a pond on a sunny day.

I reiterate, the problem is not overfishing, the problem is nutrient pollution destroying food-web nurseries. I see it happening and have done since 1982.

Science lacks scientific evidence where tuna eat and what they eat and how much they need to eat to be content to breed successfully. True – false?
Is everything ok out there?
Is algae definitely not the problem?
“stocks of all four main species have fallen to historically low levels.”
https://www.spc.int/en/publications-section/1074-getting-to-the-point-on-pacific-tuna-fisheries.html

There is hardly any tertiary stage sewage treatment locally and worldwide, the absolute majority is secondary stage only.
Unmanaged nutrient is pouring into oceans every day. Proper treatment and developing world sanitation is needed.

Solutions could include new railways, especially to transport human food/body waste nutrient back out to agriculture and farmers. Recycle, generate new productivity, business, employment, turnover, revenue. Use it for cotton. Chinese have used it for vegetables for hundreds of years. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon were fed with it, animal or human manure all same.

Capital and transport is needed and so is infrastructure to rehabilitate waterways and whole oceans.
Rail brings food nutrient from farms to people, rail can take concentrated nutrient back.
Reduce the loading.
Why not?

A conventional west-of-the-divide rail line could meander almost level or slightly downhill along and around contours of mountains.
The route could include an aqueduct that would help make the rail and aqueduct viable and achievable.
Is there any evidence this is impossible?

Adian: Where did you get the idea that any water travels under the sea from Papua to mainland Queensland?

National Water Resources (Sun Water), Little Drysdale St. Ayr. Glad to help out.