Stand: That Australia develop a plan for the construction of the worlds most advanced high speed train network called The HyperTran.

Background: Japan built its first bullet train in 1964. It carries 150 million people a year. The Australian people should accept no more delays to building our own high speed train network and we should take the matter into our own hands and get it started immediately.
Picture
High Speed Train, China.
When I was in China earlier this year, I travelled between two major cities on a high speed train and it was the most enjoyable journey I’ve ever taken. The time before that I travelled on the Shanghai Maglev Train and sat back sipping my coffee whilst the speed topped 430km/h. I imagined myself riding to Canberra for the day to visit a gallery as I travelled with my 2000 fellow passengers at over 400 km/h in complete silence, safety and supreme comfort.

This country has needed a High Speed Train Network for generations. The reason we don't have one today is more about a lack of leadership than it is about the high cost. This lack of leadership is also the reason why we won't get one anytime soon unless we take some determined action to get the job started.

So far, all we have a High Speed Rail Report. You can read it here. After I read it I was left with two overriding conclusions.

1. The government isn't going to do it - it's been placed (stacked) in the too hard basket.
2. Even if they do, they'll choose the safe path using wheel-on-rail which is old technology.

The Official Report seems to have decided that;

If we ever did decide to build something of this scale then we should play it safe and go with with the older, proven technology of wheel on rail - basically train tracks.
It will take over 40 years to build.
The speed should be capped at 300km/h (making it the slowest high speed rail network in the world).

read more: http://www.visionforaustralia.com.au/hypertran.html
https://www.facebook.com/VisionForAustralia

No question, a fast train is very desirable.
I think the problem is that it is now too late.
With the end of growth here now, and the wind down of the world economy,
projects such as this are just unaffordable.

Our most important projects should be to make our freight networks
independent of imported oil. The recently funded project for the
Brisbane - Parkes - Melbourne rail project should be electrified.
Electrification of all mainline rail networks is essential to make
food distribution independent of imported liquid fuels.

Have you read the NRMA report on the risks to our fuel supplies ?
Currently we import 95% of petrol and diesel fuels.
Soon after Brisbane and Perth refineries close we will be importing
100% of our usage. The risk to our supply is high especially if the
situation in the Middle East escalates.

When it comes to financial resources you should see that the VFT has
to be well down the list compared to assuring the viability of food
distribution around the country.

Sorry, but that is the situation, it is more important to try and
wake up the politicians to our precarious fuel situation.
Our supply could be interrupted for a multitude of reasons, war, industrial
accident, terrorism at our source refineries or our terminals, or
politics or industrial union action.
A multitude of possibilities, and if it was a world wide interruption,
no one would want to surrender any of their supply to help us.

Hay I've got a great idea.

Lets put windmills on the top of that high speed train, to generate the electricity to drive the thing.

Well that is no more pie in the sky than thinking high speed trains are feasible in Oz, with our small population & vast distances. It is also no more stupid than believing we can run any electric trains with out coal or nuclear power generation.

All public transport is a catastrophe, costing more fuel per passenger mile than private cars, & costing billions in tax payer subsidies to run.

The last thing we need is yet another hugely expensive white elephant like the National broadband network is proving to be.

If you want to do something smart with rail, bring back steam. We have got plenty of coal to run the things, & they carry it with themselves. They don't require thousands of tons of copper transmission cable.

It could fix the dole bludger problem at the same time. Just make it mandatory for anyone on unemployment, parenting or other benefits to do a 6 month stint shoveling coal on the railway, after 6 months of dole. Bet they would all find a job pretty damn quick.

Obviously it's facetious saying we should put windmills on the trains but, powering the system at least in-part from renewables should be part of the plan. I'm also wanting us to reconsider the Nuclear Power Debate here: http://www.visionforaustralia.com.au/new-energy.html

As far as suggesting that we've got plenty of coal to power is just a backward looking perspective and basically the antithisis to a VISION for Australia.

Hasbeen, yes I think it could be done by steam, especially as most of
the distance of the inland route is flat, but with world peak coal,
although not Australian peak coal, in less that 20 years, electric
locomotives have a big advantage.
The initial outlay for the electrification would be less than the high
maintenance costs of steam locomotives.
Maintenance costs were the reason for the change to diesel electric locomotives.

All alternative sources of energy become electricity either generated
as such but are converted to electricity for transmission.

As much as I am fan of steam locos, I believe their time has passed.

"As far as suggesting that we've got plenty of coal to power is just a backward looking perspective and basically the antithisis to a VISION for Australia"

Modern coal fired locomotives are a good idea as are old coal fired ones.
They carry their fuel with them, they are independent of the electrical supply which can fail, and we have billions of tons of coal.

Far better to burn it in Australia where our usage rate would lower overall world pollution than to export it for others to pollute on the grand scale.

I too do a fair amount of overseas travel and I really enjoy train travel in India, where the speeds are low (although I have been on an express at 100 mph), one can enjoy the scenery during daylight and at night enjoy the comfort of a sleeping berth.

Next thing someone will start advocating Monorails!

It makes so much sense to build a HSR at least on the East coast. It will happen eventually.
Sydney is surrounded by mountains, rivers, water catchments, national parks and ocean. There is a limit to how many people can live there. Once it gets to 10 million or so Sydney is full. The only thing left then is to use high speed rail to allow development outside the Sydney basin. Places like Goulburn, Newcastle, Albury would be boom towns before too long.
Air travel will become more and more expensive as oil prices rise and people will need cheaper alternatives. HSR is it.

The biggest problems I see are vested interests. As usual.
The airlines dont want it. The existing railways dont want it. The greenies dont want it to go through bushland. The farmers dont want it to go through farmland. No one wants to live next to it. Everyone will want it to go to their town. And no one wants to pay.

Bazz I think a modern coal fired steam engine, using powdered coal, as in modern power plants, using all the developments in extending the life of steam generation systems, rather than old fashioned boilers could be quite long lived.

Even if they need a bit more maintenance than electric, the low capital costs of the whole system would be a major winner in a near bankrupt economy.

Then we will have all those now useless factory workers. Most of them are never going to be tourism/hospitality people, but most of them could be trained to service & maintain steam trains, & we are sure going to be short of jobs.

Then again, how stupid to carry coal to a powerhouse to generate electricity, or use imported diesel, to haul our coal to the ports. I can see modern computer controlled powered coal injection fed steam becoming very competitive, if we could just sit on the Greenies long enough to get it going.

I was just taking the piss with my earlier post, but thinking about it, there is no better choice, if petroleum does get short.

Mikk what we have to do is stop relating to Sydney & Melbourne as if they have to be the center of everything. We no longer have to base our choice of living sight on a suitable port for hundreds of sailing ships.

The geographical accident that made these ports the center of industry just no longer applies. There is no reason for someone living in Goulburn, Newcastle or Albury to ever have to travel to Sydney, & certainly no reason to have to work there.

When so many people's place of work is at a computer terminal, it can be in Albury, or even Timbuktu for that matter. With people doing an increasing amount of their shopping via the net, the need for transport will diminish dramatically over time, making anything but freight services mostly redundant.

Then all we would need would be a bounty on those pesky bike riders.

For some of the possibilities of steam,
see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Chapelon

Andre Chapelon's best locomotovies were the equals, or bettered, contemporary diesel electrics and demonstrably better than the electrics.

"Everyone will want to go to their town....." very true but the Super Fast trains will not stop at their towns as stopping is uneconomical.
In days of yore the "All Stations" train was a very slow mode of transport but not if one wanted to go to the next town, 10 to 15 miles away.

I couldn’t disagree more, Vision for Australia.

How many billions would a high-speed train line cost, just from Sydney to Canberra, let alone to Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth?

Wouldn’t that money be much better spent on health, education and other basic quality-of life things?

How would a high-speed train help those who don’t live in or near the big cities?

How many people in the big cities would it actually help to any significant extent?

Sorry, but it is just totally the wrong sort of thing for us to be thinking about if we are to develop a real meaningful vision for this country.

Mikk, as I said earlier, we have missed train, it is too late.
The money will simply not be there.
The world's economy is winding down. The end of growth is already here.
As far as population is concerned, I think the very difficult economic
conditions between now and getting our sustainable economy working
will see a slow down in population growth or perhaps a reduction.

What we have to do now is ensure food production and distribution and
in ensuring that we will lay the foundations for a sustainable economy.
We need, if we can, stretch out our use of coal and natural gas.
Our exporting of coal and gas will be cursed at some time in the future.
We need them here to enable whatever is our long and difficult change
to whatever permanent energy regime we adopt for the rest of this century.

Hasbeen, we can build coal fired power stations on the coal fields
as is the case with some already.
In the longer term, oil will not be short but expensive.
Despite what many believe the major oil companies are having a hard
time with their fundamentals, they have increased their capital
expenditure dramatically but their oil production is still falling.
The increased capex has had no effect.
I have a graph here I wish could be put up so you can see it.
It is the third graph down.

http://blogs.platts.com/2014/07/30/peak-oil-forecasts

Think about the implications of that graph and then contemplate Shell
is now selling up its holdings in Woodside's NW business.
Shell and others are selling assets so as to pay dividends.
Now Hasbeen you have been in business, doesn't that make you think ?

Bazz the trouble with building power plants at coal mines is water. I know the story, a mate of mine was the human resources manager at cap coal supplying Tarong.

It becomes a real problem. Beattie was very lucky he was not in France, when he pinched the water from Boonah's irrigation dam for Swanbank. The French farmers would have burnt his parliament down.

It does make more sense to sight power generation like Gladstone, where the pacific ocean is available, & carry the coal.

Yes the oil business is less profitable, so now needs better management than they got away with previously, but I'd still like to own an oil well.

I think a high speed revamp of education & mentality would be more desireable. Australia would need to import people to operate such a train for both cost & maintenance. Is speed really such an important factor now rather than just simple efficiency ? I can just imagine a big Red hopping into the path of a 430km/h train.

Hasbeen, I had not thought that water would a limiting factor.
Do they use condensers ? Losses in that have to be topped up.
Can they use salt water ? I would have thought with the heat that
corrosion would have been an unsurmountable problem.

Anyway these are surmountable problems and the best way will be found.
That the railway needs a major refurbishment is a fundamental for the
new economy into which we have to migrate. It is not however just a
problem of main line freight but many branch lines will be needed to
be either built or reestablished.
I gather that there has been a move to road freight of harvests with
the rail line lying unused alongside. An article I read was that the
farmers were angry at the move. If I remember it was in WA.
We have all the line side infrastructure in place, silos etc so cost
would be minimal.

To get back to the subject, if the government cannot find the money
to ensure our food supply, what chance for the VFT ?
Who needs the VFT anyway ?
If is family visiting a day on the train is neither here or there.
If it is a large business meeting, use the Telstra video suite.
Use Skype for many meetings.
Anyway, you will not have the choice.

Bazz, they use the salt water to cool the fresh.

They use large volumes to avoid making the discharge of this water too hot. At Gladstone there is a channel taking the warm salt water away, & I am told it is a good fishing spot, with local type fish, but also a range of interesting fish that like the warm water, & are not usually found in the area.

These places require huge volumes of water, if only to supply the steam the greenies, & our ABC love to pretend is smoke in all their videos of cooling towers.

I'd like to comment in response to Ludwig's Post.

You're position is that we should invest our [limited] money on 'Basic" quality of life things. Our position is that money should also go toward things other than just the basics. We should invest in projects which inspire us and make a statement as to what a progressive nation we are on the world stage. If we just stuck to spending money on the basic things then we'd be hosting the likes of Pavarotti in a town hall instead of a world class Opera House.

Not meaning to give offence but I believe Australia needs to look to the future with a Can Do attitude which puts us amongst the top nations in the world. I was taught at Uni that you can only save so much but your earning capacity is unlimited. I believe Australia needs to not look at how hard something is or how much it costs but more, how can we expand our capacity to afford and achieve the great things we desire. https://www.facebook.com/VisionForAustralia

Not meaning to give offence but I believe Australia needs....
Vision for Australia,
.....less people who do what they do now, wanting ever more for as little as possible.
Australia needs people who are Australian not Australians who want Australia to mollycoddle them from cradle to grave.
Some real patriotism is needed not the pseudo patriotism that has been on display for some years now. No good saying I love Australia but if a foreigner offers me good money I'll sell it.

VFA, if I may interrupt here;
Your proposal is business as usual. It was fine up to the 1990s but
there has been a fundamental shift in the world's energy picture.
Everyone here I am sure would like to think you are right but reading
the tea leaves finds us looking reality in the face.
This landed in my inbox today and illustrates the two positions
that you and I are presenting;

http://tinyurl.com/luzq7aq

Short of some almost miraculous discovery of a very energy dense system
the sort of progressive world you describe has gone.

Dear Bazz
Within yours and my lifetime there will be a new source of energy powering our homes, cars and factories. What will it be? Bill Gates talks about an energy miracle;

http://www.visionforaustralia.com.au/new-energy.html

and I'd like to believe it could come true. The only way it will come true though is through a very diligent approach to this incredibly difficult problem. In my opinion it should be Australia's No 1 National Priority. I think we should throw everything we have at solving this problem for a decade and see what we can come up with. If we don't then the only alternative left is Nuclear.

Wake up Vision.

You want tax payer money thrown at some nebulous garbage. Governments have thrown billions, yes billions, at global warming research, & all they have found is how wrong their first premise really was. We are no closer to understanding climate, but universities are dramatically over staffed.

All you get from government scientists on original research is waste.

Yes they can develop minor changes in medicine, & a few other things, but by definition they are bureaucrats, with the bureaucrats limit in off the wall thinking.

If we are to find a new energy source, not really needed with nuclear, it won't come from formal, publicly funded research.

All this pie in the sky stuff is great, provided you fund it. Don't go spending my taxes on wild goose chases. I have far too many bureaucrats I have to support to have money to waste.

How about Tidal generating stations?

Australia has some areas with a very high tidal flows.

Dear Hasbeen

Please let me correct you. No-where did I mention this research being Taxpayer funded. I am proposing to set up a private company of people who believe that we control the future, not the future controls us.

http://www.visionforaustralia.com.au/new-energy.html

Now you are talking Vision.

That has some chance, if you get lucky with your choice of research. Someone will, so why not you.

Good luck.

Thank you Hasbeen

I appreciate the support. I believe that the harder you work the luckier you get.

Please register your interest in the project:

(You can be the first :)

I am proposing to set up a private company of people who believe that we control the future
Vision for Australia,
Are You or are you not or will you or won't you write your company's expenses off the tax ?
If you're not then all the best, if you are then I'm afraid it is inevitably taxpayer funded to a great extend.

VFA, thanks for responding to my post.

I agree, we shouldn’t just be investing in the basic quality of life things. We should be investing in projects which inspire us.

But basic quality of life things have surely got to take priority. And spending many millions of dollars on a VFT would be folly if we desperately needed that money to attend to the basics.

We should address the basics, and when they are in order, we can launch into grand projects.

The basics are under great threat. We’re heading for an energy crisis. And that means major changes in economics, unemployment and civil upheaval. We need to address this issue with a vengeance.

We really do need to put off things like a VFT until we fully understand the new energy regime and have confidently managed to uphold a coherent society, which is ready for great inspirational projects.

Interestingly, I read an article just a couple of days ago about a proposed new energy system.
The company working on it in the US says that it works by changing the
orbit of the electron of hydrogen. The theory is that when you force
the change of the electron to a new energy level it releases very
large amounts of energy and produces a new form of hydrogen called a hydrino.

One side comment is that the dark matter of the universe might be hydrinos.

The company has done a demonstration that when mixture of metal powder
and water had a high current passed through it emitted very bright light.
The metal was not consumed. There is no indication whether the output
was greater than the input.
The company says it is planning to build a 10kw pilot plant.

Now it all sounds very interesting, but some scientists say hydrinos are impossible.
Still -.-.-

Alternative energy although highly desirable, appears to be the latest fad along with every Tom, Dick & Harry becoming engineers.
From whay I have experienced these people are merely chasing titles because the level of competence is abysmal & it costs the rest of us a lot of money. Theis decade is becoming the decade of hare-brained schemes.

Yes, Individual and it will probably get worse when it becomes obvious
to the general public.
At present they, the public, are just sailing along and the biggest
worry is next weeks footy match.
Ah well good luck to them.

Vision for Australia, you are not comparing apples with apples when you compare Australia with almost any other developed nation, and this is why.

You mentioned Japan as an example.

Let's just assume every 100 km of infrastructure costs the same to build here, as it does anywhere. The difference is, that here in Oz, we could lay 100's of km of track that would simply serve to connect one station to the next, whereas in Japan, this same 100's of km of track could potentially service the needs of twenty million people.

Now of cause our costs are so much higher than in most places, from the likes of enviro consultants, planners and engineers, right through to on the ground workers, so expecting Australia to have what other heavily populated, higher density living countries has, is pointless because we simply suffer from a lack of bums on seats.

Of cause the other fundamental problem we now have, is lack of money.

VfA,

You said "....then we'd be hosting the likes of Pavarotti in a town hall instead of a world class Opera House."

We don't have a world class opera house, the Tram Depot on Benalong Point, that it replaced, was a better looking building that fitted its surrounds. It also served a useful purpose.

The Sydney Opera House was ill planed and the original seats were bloody uncomfortable and there was no provision for the disabled and very little provision for the able

Actually, the opera house as first designed would have fallen down
during construction if it wasn't for the Consulting engineers.
They were suspicious of the design of the roof and put it through the
KDF9 at Sydney Uni and so changed the shape of the roof.
The change affected the internals and that was what the row with Utson
was all about. He got in a huff and took his bucket & spade and went home.

So true, Bazz.

Then there was the time when a Builders Labourer asked one of the Foremen where all the toilet bowls, that had just been delivered, were to go.
There was nowhere for them on the plans and that's why men were forced to stand 5 or 6 to a bowl and relieve themselves during interval.

Those who wished to defecate just had to miss part of the show!!

Those who wished to defecate just had to miss part of the show!!
is Mise,
And the Tossers missed it alltogether. Did you feel bad about not seeing it ?

Individual,

I didn't miss any of the show, I knew of the problem before hand and made it to the Gents in the first rush, still had to share a bowl though.
I believe that during one of the refurbs that lifts were installed, I don't know if the toilet arrangements have improved as I don't frequent the place.
There was a fine Opera House in Sydney already and purpose built for opera, I forget the name but I think that it was in Elizabeth Street.
I do remember that its seating capacity was greater than that of the main hall of the SOH and that the seats were far more comfortable; luxurious in comparison.

is Mise,
I suppose the ignorant/arrogant elite of the day thought they could buy culture by building the Opera House. The rest didn't occur to them as imortant. Very much like the ALP nowadays.
Cultural longevity & progressive cultural content can only be achieved in the same way as sensible infrastructure. This high speed train proposal is not a practical high speed, it is a fad, an ultra high speed game. It has absolutely nothing to do with commercial long-term efficiency. It's all about some egoists trying to spend other peoples' money with of course a nice Superannuation at the end of the line.
What would be some of the benefits of an ultra high speed train network in comparison to a say 120 Km/h train ?

“What would be some of the benefits of an ultra high speed train network in comparison to a say 120 Km/h train?”

The benefits are it would be able to compete with air traffic along the east coast of Australia and might eliminate the need for a new airport in Sydney.

For example Melbourne, Sydney by rail is 870 Ks, by air the flight time is 45 mins but there is a substantial time overhead.
Very roughly:-

1 Travel time to airport 45 mins
2 Book in and get through security 1 hour
3 Flight time 45 mins
4 Deplane and retrieve luggage from hold 15 mins
5 Travel time to final destination 45 mins

So if a train can do the trip in less than 3½ hours it will be a better option than flying.

1 Because it should be cheaper.
2 Weather delays should be less frequent
3 It should be more comfortable and less cramped

To do Melbourne Sydney by train in 3½ hours you need to average about 250 Kph.
This suggests you would need a top speed of around 300 Kph.

Warmair, a little information;
The current XPT trains in NSW are capable of 200km/hr and they are the
same trains as the 125s used in the UK.
The only thing that limits their speed here is the track layout, the
way the line winds around the hills instead of having cuttings.
The track was built with horses and scoops, no earth moving machines.
The trackwork itself needs to be brought up to UK standards.

If you have traveled on the 125s in the UK you will know the difference.
I went from London to Edinburgh on the East Coast line and that is what
we need here. A Fast Enough service.

If that was done then Sydney to Melbourne could be done in a little over 5 hours including stops.

If that was done then Sydney to Melbourne could be done in a little over 5 hours including stops.
Bazz,
if that's not satisfactory then nothing will ever satisfy some. what they really want is a "Beam me up Mr Scott". And even then it wouldn't be fast enough for some.
I really think people have had it so easy for so long that they have lost all sense of reality.
Faster, better, more cause more problems than they solve.

Indeed Individual, we are all in for a rethink on a whole range of
taken for granted features of our current lives.

For instance Warmair showed some times a couple of posts back.
His time to the airport will be wrong, because Kingsford Smith airport
will be closed and if he can afford the airfare he will have to go to
Badgery's Creek where the remaining services will operate.
In a zero growth economy we may not be able to rebuild into a fast enough rail system.

Not many of us can work out just what things will change dramatically.
Aviation is an easy one as we can see it happening now.
Cars are another one that we can see problems with, as electric cars
would not solve all problems in that area of transport.
It maybe that the cost of materials to build cars will put them out
of the affordability of the average person.

Things will be different for electricity supply in other countries
as they will reach peak coal around 2025/2030. Remember what the
Chinese premier said;

"We will burn all our coal then we will burn all yours !".

What if we said, "Oh no you won't !"

Hmmm

Our real problem will be employment,we need to get on with reorganising
for a very different energy system and we need to do it now while we
have the energy needed for major adaptations. We will have the people
to do the job, but if we do not get a move on we may be attempting
the impossible.

That is where governments are letting us down, they have been told
what the problem is by their own experts as well as many other
organisations but they just cannot accept it.
They are like roos in the headlights.

What we need is a bit of common sense in creating ongoing jobs in this country.

Example:
I live in a country town and the streets are swept by a mechanical sweeper truck that was imported from Germany, it is one man operated.

Its drawbacks are that it cannot sweep the gutters where there are parked cars nor can it sweep right angled internal corners such as where there are culverts or over the gutter driveways. Spare parts are imported as is the pollution producing fuel.

It replaced a couple of horse drawn drays with two men crews.

Now that's progress, but the men sweeping the gutters could sweep where there were parked cars and get their brooms into corners and nooks and crannies, thus more efficient sweeping and less rubbish into the drainage system.
The horses were locally bred, the drays were locally built as were any needed spare parts and the fuel was locally grown.
Moreover the horses and drays could be used for other purposes whereas the mechanical sweeper is a dedicated vehicle that has only one use.

Thus there was more money spent locally, there were three more men locally employed which would normally mean three more families in the town, more children in the school and more money spent in the town.

A study was done on this very scenario and the conclusion was that overall the dray system was more efficient and less costly.

It had one great drawback however, it was not seen as progressive and modern!

Warmair,

"So if a train can do the trip in less than 3½ hours it will be a better option than flying.

1 Because it should be cheaper.
2 Weather delays should be less frequent
3 It should be more comfortable and less cramped"

1.It would be cheaper but not by much as the fares would be set to be a bit below airfares.
2.Probably true.
3.Seating would be designed to get the maximum number of passengers in reasonable comfort so probably the same as aircraft.

Travel times would be the same to get to the station as to get to the airport; travel times depend on where one lives.

So 3.5 hours plus 2 x 45 minutes equals 5 hours and even if the VFT, with an operating speed of 300kph, managed to do the trip in 3 hours that would still be 4.5 hours for the trip.

Thus the VFT would be considerably slower than by air and would require far more land to be permanently alienated from other uses than does the two airports.
Much of the land would be agriculturally useful, being on the East Coast.

When I was living in Queensland north from MacKay it was always cheaper to fly than train to Brisbane.

I took the train a couple of times, as I rather liked train travel.

I must admit I did find it funny that the train had to slow to walking pace every 10 miles or so, to exchange the signals key with the signals operator. This rather quaint 19Th century practice was to ensure no train would be coming the other way.

Whatever happens you can be sure that the train & air fares will not be
competitive.
The airfare, if still available might be ten times the train fare.
However you or I might guess you can be sure we will be wrong.

No one really knows the answers to these very new situations.

If the price of avgas is very high then trains or CNG busses may be
the only way to travel interstate. The CNG would no doubt be well up in
price because diesel & petrol would be very high and hopefully the
electricity cost for the train might be quite reasonable.

Oh well, there is one thing certain, it will be very different.

Remember I made a comment about CSIRO's prediction of $8 a litre by
2020, Well I reread the CSIRO paper and that price was for one of
three conditions. The $8 one is the worse case where there is a fairly
fast fall in oil production and a slow take up of alternatives.

The most optimistic case was for a price of $2-80 a litre for a slow
fall in production and a fast uptake of alternatives.
Knowing our pollies, I think the $8 is a certainty.

Hi VFA,

I’ve been working hard on a technical and economic feasibility analysis for this project. In fact, subject to your approval of this I’m definitely IN!

Technically there is no obstacle but the cost must be well below equivalent air travel. This is because over the next 40 years, air travel and flight availability will broaden, tram and light rail links to airports will proliferate and overall travel times by air will reduce, even without more cost effective aircraft.

Your ace in the hole is renewable energy.

To capitalize on these technologies we need all tracks to have downhill and uphill sections. On the downhill sections the enormous weight of the trains, carriages, generators, batteries and peizo-electric storage would generate vast amounts of electricity and store it. They could also act as speed control and brakes.

All the uphill sections would be constructed where renewable energy is readily available. For instance some uphill sections could be built near the coast where wave power could be made available, rolling hills where wind turbines could supply energy, farmers occupying grazing pastures en route could contribute bio-generation and sunnier inland routes could contribute solar power. Grid connections could supply electricity when renewables fail and on board coal fired steam power when all else fails.

I like your idea of Nuclear power, in fact I understand that Range Rover has developed a Nuclear Powered 4WD which can be plugged into the grid at night to run a small town.

It should also be noted that renewable sources of electricity are virtually free, except for the billions of dollars from taxpayer funding in the form of REFC, RET, subsidies, tariffs and energy surcharges.

So given no change in the taxpayer investment in renewables, public money will continue to subsidize the low fare advantage of this project.

Now we need assess the risk associated with the potential withdrawal of public funding over the next 40 years or find independent investors.

I also had an idea that international travel could use plexi-glass tubes laid on the sea bed to run trains to overseas destinations.

What ho! Spindoc,

Good to see that someone is continuing to write in the genre made famous by Lewis Carroll.

Now Now Ismise, I am usually accused of that !

I can't help thinking that the focus on really high speed train travel is hovering outside the realm of practicality. Such immense speed invariably attracts technical problems with disastrous potential. Imagine a cow or some roos on such a track. Would a fence on both sides of the track be realistic ?
My take is if someone wants too travel really fast then take an aeroplane. Planes can by-pass floods, animals etc. at no extra cost. For what it's worth I believe in slower, more reliable trains for passenger & freight service. Ideally in my book is a Mono Rail.

inndividual,

On a monorail, how would you clear a major breakdown of a train?

Individual, the VFT only makes any sense at all after the airlines have
been priced out because of fuel costs.
The airlines have been fiddling with biofuels.
Certainly at present fuel prices biofuels are not a goer, but as fuel
prices rise they might become viable.
Catch22, first using biofuels to produce biofuels is a cost problem
and biofuels still have a poor energy return on energy invested.
In a rationing regime, if it reaches that, aviation fuels may be banned.

However in an economy where airlines have been priced out there will
not be either the credit or taxes available to build the VFT.

The best we can do is to start yesterday on rebuilding the mainline
track to higher standards and to straighten them out to increase speed
to around 200km/hr standard.
Electrification could be done at the same time.

However while governments are still pouring money into roads I just
cannot see any chance that the upgrade will be done in time.

is Mise,
Fix it like any breakdown is fixed, you repair it. Repairing a Monorail is no different to any other piece of mechanics. At least a Monorail would suffer a hell of a lot less breakdowns from cars crossing the rails, from trees, from flooding, from whatever else happens on present rail lines. Plus it wouldn' hold up any other traffic.
In the long run I'd bet that a Monorail would be a winner. But you can't wait for the long run can you, you want your returns now not in a few years. It's that kind of impatience that's gradually costing us a good future infrastructure. You don't use investors for such a project if they can't carry it for at least five years. Why do you think the wealthiest families are so wealthy ? Because they're not after a quick buck like most backyard investors.

Just came across this article on the US VFT proposals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html

They are having the same sort of problems that we would encounter.

individual,

If it is a monorail then it is either suspended or is running on top of the single rail with gyroscopic compensation.
If the former then the train must be towed back to the nearest siding if it is the latter then it has fallen off the track and would pose no problem; but for safety the whole track would have to have continuous rest strips along the whole route so that in the event of a power failure the train can't fall over.

There would be a substantial problem towing such a train back to a siding as it would have no stabilizers.
The only way to keep it upright would be to fit wheels to run on the rest strips, in effect a train running on three rails.

Why are there no freight monorails or any long monorails (this includes all the elevated railways that pose as monorails).

is Mise,
for crying out loud, on one hand you want the most advanced ultra fast rail network & on the other hand you can't envisage how repairs would be done on a monorail ?
Are you totally lacking any sort of vision whatsoever ? How do you think a broken down ultra fast train would be repaired ? Do you really have so little imagination that you can't see a monorail repaired ? Don't you think the engineers who design such machinery don't have ways of fixing it ? You need a smarter argument than that against a monorail.

Hmm, looks like the subjects have lost interest in the subject. How about a quick survey on ultra high speed, high speed or monorail trains to service via the remote parts of Australia.
Just write the name of the type of train, no other arguments of for/against needed. Just an indication what people would like to see being built.
cheers

No, not lost interest, just missed your post.
I think that my previous post answers your concerns.

Just how would a monorail train that had broken down be removed from the track?
Drop it if it's suspended?
Would the monorail wending its way across the vast reaches of Australia have to have a service road built along its entire length and how far apart would the sidings have to be, because using a siding is the only feasible way of removing a straddle train from the main line.

You have never yet stated what you mean by a monorail; do you mean a train running on one rail, or suspended from it, or do you mean the two tracked trains running on a concrete beam with stabilizer/retention wheels?

I am not an advocate of high speed trains, rather I'm an advocate of a ground level two rail system using steam locomotives.

you mean a train running on one rail, or suspended from it, or do you mean the two tracked trains running on a concrete beam with stabilizer/retention wheels?
is Mise,
whichever works best with the available technology. The main factor would be that the train would not require embankments, bridges, crossovers & wide clearings of Bush land. The repairs to a broken down monorail present absolutely no technical challenge whatsoever. There can be a technique which lifts a broken down carriage or lokomotive onto a recovery wagon either in front or behind it. That can easily be designed into the train. It is absolutely no point even worth considering from an engineering viewpoint.
On-off ramps for cars & trucks can be placed literally anywhere. No cattle or fallen trees or other debris washed onto tracks. It really is a win-win system.

individual,

What works best with the available technology is two steel rails attached to sleepers, but what I'd like to know is are you talking about monorails, that is one rail or are you talking about straddle beam trains?
Steel wheels on steel rails or rubber tyres on concrete, with all the attendant frictional losses?

As for embankments, they would still be needed as would be culverts/cuttings and tunnels on any long monorail on the East Coast of Australia, then there are the thousands of supporting column on a long line and the infrastructure, such as roads, to get the columns into place, or do you envisage the 'monorail' carrying each segment of its intended track to trackhead and then lowering it into place?

A conventional railway has two contact points, wheels and rails whereas some 'monorails' have five running surfaces on the beam.

Just out of interest how do you think that a suspended crane could lift a broken down suspended train from the track?

'Monorails' don't need to be elevated but can be built at grade thus saving all that concrete in support columns.

Monorails and "monorails" have their place but it's in cities where there is already infrastructure to facilitate their building, such as the newly opened one in Mumbai, India, on which I hope to have a ride next year.

is Mise,
You remind me of that Cowboy some 150 years ago who said that wheels will never take over from the horse.
Now they've been to the moon & back. I'm sure there were people who argued if the control handles of the space craft should be made of plastic or bakelite just like you do now about a single rail or straddle beams.
The technology is there for a monorail it's only resentment of something new or different or even fear that it might work that stands in the way of actually building it.

individual,

No one fears them being built, they have been built all around the world, but they are only short lines and I don't think that you either appreciate the enormous cost of building very long monorail lines orthe engineering problems involved.
A road for the entire length of the line is the only feasible way of getting the track and its supports on site, unless the monorail is built at grade and then the few advantages of it being elevated disappear.

You still haven't said what you mean by the term monorail.

monorail
noun
a railway in which the track consists of a single rail,
Is Mise,
That's what I mean by monorail, not parallel. It simply could not work out as difficult as you're trying to make out. I concede that it probably isn't an ideal investors' or rather speculators' proposal but it is a very practical solution from every aspect. Better than what we presently have. A monorail could go through country that would prohibit even a dirt track. The EPA would not have a leg to stand on unlike with a conventional rail or a road.

individual,

"A monorail could go through country that would prohibit even a dirt track. The EPA would not have a leg to stand on unlike with a conventional rail or a road."

Glad that you have finally reached the conclusion that a monorail runs on one rail, now top of the rail or suspended?

To build any monorail you first have to build a road to get the piers and girders in, to get the cranes in to lift the components, the diggers in to dig the holes for the foundations for the piers.

Of course the components could be airlifted by helicopters and men with picks and shovels could dig the foundations and the choppers could bring in the reinforcing steel and the cement.

Probably be a bit costly though!!

This will give some idea of some of the complexities of monorail (straddle beam) construction in a hilly area.

"The monorail vehicles with strong climbing capabilities and have heavy rail capacity, which can transport 30,000 passengers per hour per direction, invaluable in the densely populated but hilly city. Line 2 is for the most part elevated above streets, although a 2.2 km section is underground, including three of its 18 stations in the Jeifangbei CBD and Daping downtown areas in hyper-dense populated area of Yuzhong District. In 2010, Line 2 served 45 million passengers.[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chongqing_Rail_Transit

Note the use of tunnels and the viable passenger numbers.

If you have any doubt about what I was saying about a fast enough
train service if trackwork upgraded to UK standards, here is a video of
the East Coast mainline from London to Edinburgh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Q2A1pg1K4sQ

We could afford this, especially as airline costs are esculating so fast.
I got a price yesterday Sydney to Melbourne for 2 $1144 !

If you look at the video, the dark blue trains with the white stripe
are the 125s and are the same trains as the NSW XPTs, if the track was
upgraded we would not even have to purchase new rolling stock.

At about 3 to 5 minutes on the tape the white trains with "East Coast"
on the carriage sides are also 125s.
A lot of them look similar to 125s but may be later versions.

Any way I think we could do with something like that.