Using larger aircraft for SYD MEL

[Jon B]

I agree that the train would need to be able to do city CBD to city CBD in around 2 hours to be viable, given thats about the time you need to allow for the flight during morning or evening. Train would be great given you could use phone / internet and get up and move around. Something like the French TGV train set up would be ideal, but as others have said it has been talked about alot and seems unlikely for many years to come.

Train or plane it is all about frequency - it is always good to get an earlier flight if you can or get on an alternate quickly if there is a cancellation.

Downside to the train for me would be missing out on logging my flights and the FF points!!!!!

[D Chan]

just think how long the politicians have been talking about a second Sydney Airport and how it never eventuated.. high speed rail is another one of those things where they will talk about it for years and years and never materialise

using larger aircraft means larger turnaround time so there will always be a tradeoff

[Ash W]

Originally Posted by Jon B

I agree that the train would need to be able to do city CBD to city CBD in around 2 hours to be viable, given thats about the time you need to allow for the flight during morning or evening. Train would be great given you could use phone / internet and get up and move around. Something like the French TGV train set up would be ideal, but as others have said it has been talked about alot and seems unlikely for many years to come.

Train or plane it is all about frequency - it is always good to get an earlier flight if you can or get on an alternate quickly if there is a cancellation.

Downside to the train for me would be missing out on logging my flights and the FF points!!!!!

The plane is more like 3 hours CBD to CBD. As for the FF points, no reason why an airline couldn't be involved in the running and points given for the train. I beleive Airchance does it on some SNCF TGV services in France and I beleive they are also looking at becoming an operator in their own right.

[Jethro H]

The distance is a factor. There are no high speed rail lines of such distance that operate successfully in the world.

The construction of the line will be expensive. It can't use hardly of any of the current route as the curves are too sharp for high speed. The radii of a high speed line should not be any less than 5 km which will be a challenge inland NSW.

[Ash W]

Distance wise Sydney to Melbourne (about 900km) is about 100km longer than Paris to Marseille, which operates TGV's very successfully at hourly intervals. If that isn't enough then SNCF also operates TGV's several times a day successfully from Lille to Marseille, so add another 300km or so to the distance.

So yes it can be done. Also you are looking at end to end, IMO the major benefit to the country is all the locations in between that would be connected.

Cost yes it would be expensive, however wait any longer and it will cost even more. As for track design the engineers say it is possible, I have no reason to doubt them. If built the same as HS1 in the UK the line could also be used for freight, which would be yet another bonus to the country.

[Scott L.]

Dont get me wrong, I love the thrill of flying - its something I have been addicted to from very early in my life.

Having said that, it's frustrating sometimes getting the 6.30am Sydney to Melbourne once a week. It's a three hour ride, and five hours from the moment I get up until I get to the office. Heres the drill:

4am - Wake Up
4.30am - On the road
5.20am - assuming no road issues, arrive parked at the long term car park
5.50ish - arrive in the terminal and check bags
6.20am - Board flight
8.00am - Arrive Melbourne
8.30am - Collect bags and board Taxi - it is taking, nowadays, half an hour to get the bags off and collected
9.30ish - Arrive in Melbourne City, knackered!

I recently caught the Eurostar from London to Paris. I think its around 500k's and just over 2 hours. The tickets were 300 pounds return - so say $600 for Business class. It was brilliant. Electronic Devices and wireless broadband from the moment you step abourd until the minute you get off, power in the seat, newspapers and magazines, get up walk around, heaps of space, make or receive calls when you want and, a brilliant food and beverage service (Business Class only - Economy can buy onboard).

I should also point out that a 5hr trip from Edinburgh Scotland to London also had a very good wireless broadband service - provided for free.

For the Eurostar, I recall getting up at 5.30am to the St Pancras station at 6.30am and was in Paris by 9am London time. It just seemed more comfortable and pleasurable experience. Having done London Heathrow to Paris CDG, and it taking the best part of the day - the Eurostar is definately the way to go.

Im no transport expert but, for an Australian high speed rail, ticketing might be more or less the same flying v rail (when compared to Eurostar). Rail will certainly take longer than air but it's more likely to be a direct city to city service with, IMO, a better experience.

Given the population though - do we need it and would it be viable? I would certainly use it.

A large scale infrastructure project like this would be good for Australia - good for travellers, industry, jobs, environment (its seemingly 90% more environmentally friendly than air travel) and would be the only properly planned peice of infrastructure that was planned before it was hastily needed - unlike most other large infrastructure projects we seem to do here.

[Ash W]

Originally Posted by Scott L.

A large scale infrastructure project like this would be good for Australia - good for travellers, industry, jobs, environment (its seemingly 90% more environmentally friendly than air travel) and would be the only properly planned peice of infrastructure that was planned before it was hastily needed - like most other large infrastructure projects we seem to do here.

Scott you last para is the main reason why it should be built, as clearly it would never come even close to ever recovering the cost of building.

[Nathan Long]

Originally Posted by Scott L.

...environment (its seemingly 90% more environmentally friendly than air travel)...

Not necessarily. The CO2 produced generating the electricity in Australias coal fired power stations would need to be taken into account.

[Scott L.]

I trawled through their website and found the analysis. The link is here.

"The bottom line was that a journey between London, Paris and Brussels by Eurostar generates just one tenth of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) of flying."

I did not read the report in it's entirety though, which is listed there for energy boffins to make comemnt. Whether the energy supplier in UK or Paris has the same CO2 output stats as coal fired power stations in Australia remains an open question.

Its not exactly all guilt free travel as they would suggest either. I believe the UK has Nuclear Powered power stations that supply energy to the train so theres an overburden of waste from that process which needs to be also taken into consideration.

[Jethro H]

Only 20% of UK power is Nuclear and power for the Chunnel comes from the national grid.
But about 80% of French power is nuclear, so yes their greenhouse gases are very low for electricity production compared to Australia.

If a private company is willing to put up the money for a HSR in Australia, they are more than welcome.

The question would be how much should the tax payer help with the costs?