Going nowhere due to the now horrendous of energy and all that flows from that. Making the case for no new rail my support the taxi industry, the trucking and bus industries. That in spite of the fact the rail is cheaper and far more efficient and relieves gridlock.

If we could buy some Chinese MS Thorium reactors and they are for sale, we could use some to burn nuclear waste and do so in complete walk away safety! Burning fuel, we are paid annual millions to take.

And as we burn this free fuel reduce half-life from thousands of years to just 3-400! And create the world's cheapest industrial energy. And make Australia a nation that once again makes and sells stuff.

Getting the cost of energy down will take the wind out of the sails of inflation and the cost wage spiral.

Then, all the prevents the construction of rapid rail and fast commuter rail, is government ineptitude, politics, political point scoring and prevarication.
Alan B.

When Japan built its rapid rail system it produced huge economic benefit.

We could do likewise as off the books funding. Once we've taken the wind out of the sails of inflation. As aforementioned above.

The value of the completed projects can then be used to completely offset the cost of building these assets by simply moving the value of the new asset to the other side of the ledger.

It's the same financial strategy the banks use to lend many times more than they hold in assets or cash. If we do it, we can add government backing and the financial resources of the reserve bank of Australia.

Getting the cost of energy way down and creating a energy selling superpower won't hurt us either, just the very opposite.
Alan B.

I find it hard to believe that rail is not worth the cost when I sit
on the station loosing count of the containers as the freight goes
through !
Minute after minute it takes at about 60 km/hr.
It seems to go on forever.
Two locos up the front with a driver and his mate. He is not a fireman
now of course. It would take hundreds of trucks and drivers on the
roads and it could not move at that speed.
I have driven alongside these trains occasionally and they are doing
about 90km/hr.
A lot less fuel used compared to what the trucks would need.
Nothing is as efficient as steel wheel on steel rail !
The lines can be electrified, so nukes could fuel it all.

Passenger rail is of course a different kettle.
The high speed rail, such as been talked about for years, in a country
like Australia cannot compete with airlines. Few cities too far apart.
However the cost can be shared with freight provided provision is made
to share the track with both classes of traffic.
It might mean slower passenger trains and faster freight trains.
The Sydney to Newcastle and Brisbane VFT needed a new Hawkesbury
crossing bridge and that was where it fell down, the new bridge needed
was about the size of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
Also a new tunnel from north of Castle Hill to Central would be needed.
Also a new tunnel from Central to south of Liverpool needed for the
Melbourne service.
It just did not seem possible to do it to compete with the airlines.
It all seemed too hard.

In France their high-speed rail beats the airlines regularly. No reason why we couldn't do that here. And if we invest in VLT then 900 klms is very possible given 3500 is the current upper limit.

Station to station and CBD in a little over three hours doable and one would assume rail with their schedules are less likely to cancel.

If we roll out rapid rail and nothing but the political will prevents, the airlines will need to seriously lift their game and put downward pressure on the fares they charge.

We need to learn the lessons that privatisation gave us and when we roll out rapid rail, keep it in public hands!
Alan B.

Every passenger rail service looses money on every passenger it carries.

What a great reason to add more passenger rail services to the endless government waste. Quick lets build more railway lines so we can get rid of more of this excess money lefty governments love to throw at union jobs.

Every passenger service losses money? It's slow!

I don't believe that applies to our Brisbane commuter service, which very well patronised. And regularly exceeds 100 klms.

The east coast corridor/air service is one of the most patronised in the world and is said to be the third busiest.

A rapid rail service that was faster than the current air service would likely be as well patronised as the Lyons to Paris service, which is faster than the air service and makes money!

I suggest a very rapid rail service would do likewise down the east coast. Rail also has a rep for keeping to its published schedules.
Alan B.

Further comment: The cost of energy has to impact the cost of supplying these services.

As does maintaining a service rolled out around the nineteenth century.

Rail lines need serous upgrades and renewable to get drivers off our roads and commuting by rail.
Alan B.

I'm a former economic policy adviser, I advised the Queensland government on many major projects from 1991-2002. I found that almost all were non-viable; they all went ahead and proved so, e.g. the magnesium smelter, various dams, the Suncorp Stadium, the convention centre ...

On transport, the projected revenue from the proponents often indicated that they would be viable. I wasn't able to assess that. But in all/almost all cases, the usage and revenue tended to be about a third of what was projectd, so the projects were heavily loss-making. In addition across all projects, the realised cost was generally much higher than the projected cost.

I found two things at work: ministers wanted projects, so people supplied them. But they were not competent to do so. Second, nay-saying was career-wrecking, as in my case.

The magnesium smelter project had been on the books for 30-odd years. Three departments wanted to get it up. When my team and I met with them, they couldn't argue with our analysis but said "You are all ivory-tower economists." I responded, "I was a project adviser for the UK electricity generation body, many times the size of the Queensland industry. My project analyst was project manager for the state's biggest aluminum company for eight years. My econometrician worked for BHP Steel. What is your background?" None had worked outside the public service.

The days when men worked in concentrated workplaces and women stayed home to attend to home and family chores are long gone. All public transport systems are mass transit systems that are limited to a set of point (stations, stops) along a linear route, and are available only at points in time determined by timetables. In today's modern post-industrial societies where women have workforce participation rates equal to men, and where daily household activities are shared, public transport lacks the space-time flexibility to satisfy these basic family tasks in the limited time available for their completion. Hence, for the vast majority of people the private car is an essential element of travel. Also, every item of freight collected and distributed in urban areas is carried by trucks or vans. Time for urban planners and authorities to accept that cars and trucks are here to stay and are an essential component of all economic activity.

There actually is another solution seldom considered.
It is "The Fast Enough" rail system.
In NSW we already have the rolling stock, the XPTs known in the UK
as the 125s.
They are capable of 250km/hr speeds. Our tracks would need straightening out, but the very expensive Hawkesbury bridge and tunnels
would not be needed.
The same tracks could be used for freight with long passing sections
for scheduled passenger trains.
The problem is it does not give much glory to the politicians.
It would give 3 1/2 hours to Sydney to Melbourne which is about what it takes by air.