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’.