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 !