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.