5 ms·

Well, aside from any dramas with the financing history of this Sydney-Melbourne link, the distance is not the most favorable. People (those who would pay / sup

Well, aside from any dramas with the financing history of this Sydney-Melbourne link, the distance is not the most favorable. People (those who would pay / support such a service when it comes down to it) will generally choose rail versus air based on the time city center to city center. Sydney-Melbourne is 900 km. This is beyond the outer edge of where rail versus air is highly competitive. By several hours. Paris-London (500km) is about break even for the air/rail time tradeoff, and there rail takes about 50% share. Barcelona-Madrid is a bit further (600km), and has done really well also although that's a bit of a special case. San Francisco-Los Angeles is 600km and you can see how poorly that project is going -- which by the way is what this Australian project has the similar feeling of. So by the time you get to Sydney-Melbourne, you're talking 900 km and > 3 hours difference between the air/rail options and really not favored. Maybe Canberra in the middle helps a little, but the volume of traffic of people choosing this option is just not there.

shakna 7y ago
I'm not sure the premise holds. The Sydney<->Melbourne airway is one of the busiest in the world. That means whilst you do have a lot of people who want the fastest time, you also have a lot of people who just want to get there. You have tourists and families who are willing to give up time if it means they can get other things. Like easy access to toilets, food, and the ability to move around freely. They will doubly be likely to give up on time if it also lets them save on cost. (Flights seem to average $100-300/adult).
- H8crilA 7y ago
  High speed rail isn't exactly cheap in terms of tickets. The path I used in the past (Zurich - Paris) is more expensive than the plane. I still choose the train because it's nicer and connects city centres. Also, it's at 600km, and I do agree with the GP that my percieved benefit of the train would disappear if it was any further. I.e. it's at the limit of what I consider useful. You can almost always get more planes going on the busy route.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    The plane gets subsidies: there are no taxes on fuel for example.
    - wormseed 7y ago
      No taxes on fuel isn’t a subsidy, there’s a natural race to the bottom on fuel prices because airlines can easily put more fuel in in a cheaper country. Meanwhile, in Germany and France nearly 30% of the total cost of rail service is directly covered by the government, and it’s still more expensive than flying.
      - H8crilA 7y ago
        It's still a subsidy (if the rail traffic is taxed and not supported by govt), except that it's a weird kind of subsidy that's near impossible to eliminate. Also not necessarily true, you can't land a big plane with too much fuel.
      - alexgmcm 7y ago
        >airlines can easily put more fuel in in a cheaper country. Wouldn't you then end up using a lot of the fuel just carrying the extra fuel? This cost could negate the tax savings.
      - mschuster91 7y ago
        > No taxes on fuel isn’t a subsidy, there’s a natural race to the bottom on fuel prices because airlines can easily put more fuel in in a cheaper country. There is not, simply because the maximum take-off weight is way larger than maximum landing weight - you can't just shuttle around fuel because you can't land the plane when it's loaded. This is also the reason why airplanes have to dump fuel when emergency/unplanned (e.g. due to medical emergency) landing. While the passengers may survive a full weight landing, the plane will incur heavy damage.
        iggldiggl 7y ago
        > why airplanes have to dump fuel when emergency/unplanned (e.g. due to medical emergency) landing Though perhaps that's not the best example - for a really urgent medical emergency where every minute matters, an overweight landing would certainly be considered ahead of wasting precious time dumping fuel. Equally, there are a few more other types of emergencies where you'd want to get back onto the ground ASAP even if that means exceeding the maximum landing weight. > While the passengers may survive a full weight landing, the plane will incur heavy damage. At least these days, all aircraft certified under Part 25 must be able to land at maximum take-off weight with a descent rate of 6 ft/s (360 ft/min), which is already at the border towards what would be considered a hard landing (at maximum landing weight, planes need to allow a landing with 10 ft/s / 600 ft/min without structural damage). So of course you still need to consider whether the changed performance characteristics (approach speed, required runway length, climb gradient for go-arounds, etc.) at MTOW will still allow you to land safely in that specific situation, but fear of "heavy damage" is not something you need to consider. You might want to bring the plane down a little even more careful than usual, the brakes certainly have to work harder and maybe the plane needs to be inspected afterwards just to be sure, but otherwise you should be fine.
- dagw 7y ago
  They will doubly be likely to give up on time if it also lets them save on cost. High speed rail is almost never significantly cheaper than flying between major cities, at least in Europe.
- supernova87a 7y ago
  Do you really think a ticket on the potential route Sydney-Mel will be <$100 one way?
  - shakna 7y ago
    No, but it might be less than $300.
adrianN 7y ago
High speed rail tops out around 300km/h. Average speeds of 200km/h are doable if you don't have too many stops on the way. Five hours or so from train station to train station doesn't sound so bad compared to flying. It depends on the price of course. The Berlin-Munich high speed line is quite popular and takes around five hours. German high speed trains are slower than e.g. Shinkansen, so the slightly longer distance between Melbourne and Sydney should be doable in a similar time.
- Tade0 7y ago
  Personally for the same price I would go by rail - chiefly because of legroom.
quentindemetz 7y ago
Beijing to Shanghai is 1200km and and the high-speed link there seems to thrive just fine
- lovemenot 7y ago
  I imagine it depends on the number and scale of existing intermediate cities. The proposed route in Australia passes through nothing of note.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    The Beijing to Shanghai HSR is direct. But the same tracks support other lines that stop at other cities along the way.
- robocat 7y ago
  I suspect they never had to pay for the capital investment (because it was built or subsidised by the government).
- dagw 7y ago
  A quick search seems to show that a high speed rail ticket is significantly cheaper than flying. Most high speed rail projects that have to, more or less, cover their own costs tend to cost about the same as flying.
- duckymcduckface 7y ago
  Chinese aviation industry is special, a lot of their airspace is military and is closed to commercial aviation which leads to heavy congestion and thus late arrivals and not a lot of slots. Those high speed trains end up being workhorses for their transportation infrastructure.
nguoi 7y ago
Tax air travel proportional to its negative externalities - you can start by taxing the fuel like we have to for cars - and suddenly the price difference becomes well worth spending a few more hours in relative comfort.
- Retric 7y ago
  Car fuel taxes are largely to cover road costs not pollution. Longer term electric cars will probably face similar taxes. Airlines more directly pay for airports and air traffic control/FAA which covers their infrastructure externalities. https://www.faa.gov/about/budget/aatf/ https://www.faa.gov/about/budget/aatf/
  - heavenlyblue 7y ago
    I think the main point about taxing aviation fuel is the competition against train industry rather than pollution.
Ericson2314 7y ago
Throw in some global carbon tax and I think that's a fine distance for rail. We really should only be using airlines for intercontinental travel.
atombender 7y ago
Norway has several very long railways -- it's a very long country. Oslo-Trondheim is about 500 km, Trondheim-Bodø about 700 km, Oslo-Bergen around 480 km. Taking the train instead of flying is a popular and relatively cheap activity in Norway. The rail journey, perhaps the Bergen route in particular, is prized for its scenic views. There's even a television program, famously broadcast on national TV, that shows the train journey in real time, filmed from a camera mounted on the front. (You can find it on YouTube. It's great, and it's spawned lots of imitators in places like Switzerland and Turkey.) Getting to the rest of Europe by rail (via Sweden) is similarly cheap and convenient as an alternative to flying, even if it's slower. None of these railways classify as high speed, of course.
heavenlyblue 7y ago
Paris-London takes 50% share because it’s 2-3x more expensive than flying if you don’t book in advance. And that’s also including the fact that this specific route also has the same level of security you’d get at the airport. Isn’t flight industry heavily subsidised, too?

shakna 7y ago

I'm not sure the premise holds. The Sydney<->Melbourne airway is one of the busiest in the world. That means whilst you do have a lot of people who want the fastest time, you also have a lot of people who just want to get there. You have tourists and families who are willing to give up time if it means they can get other things. Like easy access to toilets, food, and the ability to move around freely. They will doubly be likely to give up on time if it also lets them save on cost. (Flights seem to average $100-300/adult).

H8crilA 7y ago
High speed rail isn't exactly cheap in terms of tickets. The path I used in the past (Zurich - Paris) is more expensive than the plane. I still choose the train because it's nicer and connects city centres. Also, it's at 600km, and I do agree with the GP that my percieved benefit of the train would disappear if it was any further. I.e. it's at the limit of what I consider useful. You can almost always get more planes going on the busy route.
- adrianN 7y ago
  The plane gets subsidies: there are no taxes on fuel for example.
  - wormseed 7y ago
    No taxes on fuel isn’t a subsidy, there’s a natural race to the bottom on fuel prices because airlines can easily put more fuel in in a cheaper country. Meanwhile, in Germany and France nearly 30% of the total cost of rail service is directly covered by the government, and it’s still more expensive than flying.
    - H8crilA 7y ago
      It's still a subsidy (if the rail traffic is taxed and not supported by govt), except that it's a weird kind of subsidy that's near impossible to eliminate. Also not necessarily true, you can't land a big plane with too much fuel.
    - alexgmcm 7y ago
      >airlines can easily put more fuel in in a cheaper country. Wouldn't you then end up using a lot of the fuel just carrying the extra fuel? This cost could negate the tax savings.
    - mschuster91 7y ago
      > No taxes on fuel isn’t a subsidy, there’s a natural race to the bottom on fuel prices because airlines can easily put more fuel in in a cheaper country. There is not, simply because the maximum take-off weight is way larger than maximum landing weight - you can't just shuttle around fuel because you can't land the plane when it's loaded. This is also the reason why airplanes have to dump fuel when emergency/unplanned (e.g. due to medical emergency) landing. While the passengers may survive a full weight landing, the plane will incur heavy damage.
      - iggldiggl 7y ago
        > why airplanes have to dump fuel when emergency/unplanned (e.g. due to medical emergency) landing Though perhaps that's not the best example - for a really urgent medical emergency where every minute matters, an overweight landing would certainly be considered ahead of wasting precious time dumping fuel. Equally, there are a few more other types of emergencies where you'd want to get back onto the ground ASAP even if that means exceeding the maximum landing weight. > While the passengers may survive a full weight landing, the plane will incur heavy damage. At least these days, all aircraft certified under Part 25 must be able to land at maximum take-off weight with a descent rate of 6 ft/s (360 ft/min), which is already at the border towards what would be considered a hard landing (at maximum landing weight, planes need to allow a landing with 10 ft/s / 600 ft/min without structural damage). So of course you still need to consider whether the changed performance characteristics (approach speed, required runway length, climb gradient for go-arounds, etc.) at MTOW will still allow you to land safely in that specific situation, but fear of "heavy damage" is not something you need to consider. You might want to bring the plane down a little even more careful than usual, the brakes certainly have to work harder and maybe the plane needs to be inspected afterwards just to be sure, but otherwise you should be fine.
dagw 7y ago
They will doubly be likely to give up on time if it also lets them save on cost. High speed rail is almost never significantly cheaper than flying between major cities, at least in Europe.
supernova87a 7y ago
Do you really think a ticket on the potential route Sydney-Mel will be <$100 one way?
- shakna 7y ago
  No, but it might be less than $300.

adrianN 7y ago

High speed rail tops out around 300km/h. Average speeds of 200km/h are doable if you don't have too many stops on the way. Five hours or so from train station to train station doesn't sound so bad compared to flying. It depends on the price of course. The Berlin-Munich high speed line is quite popular and takes around five hours. German high speed trains are slower than e.g. Shinkansen, so the slightly longer distance between Melbourne and Sydney should be doable in a similar time.

Tade0 7y ago
Personally for the same price I would go by rail - chiefly because of legroom.

quentindemetz 7y ago

Beijing to Shanghai is 1200km and and the high-speed link there seems to thrive just fine

lovemenot 7y ago
I imagine it depends on the number and scale of existing intermediate cities. The proposed route in Australia passes through nothing of note.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  The Beijing to Shanghai HSR is direct. But the same tracks support other lines that stop at other cities along the way.
robocat 7y ago
I suspect they never had to pay for the capital investment (because it was built or subsidised by the government).
dagw 7y ago
A quick search seems to show that a high speed rail ticket is significantly cheaper than flying. Most high speed rail projects that have to, more or less, cover their own costs tend to cost about the same as flying.
duckymcduckface 7y ago
Chinese aviation industry is special, a lot of their airspace is military and is closed to commercial aviation which leads to heavy congestion and thus late arrivals and not a lot of slots. Those high speed trains end up being workhorses for their transportation infrastructure.

nguoi 7y ago

Tax air travel proportional to its negative externalities - you can start by taxing the fuel like we have to for cars - and suddenly the price difference becomes well worth spending a few more hours in relative comfort.

Retric 7y ago
Car fuel taxes are largely to cover road costs not pollution. Longer term electric cars will probably face similar taxes. Airlines more directly pay for airports and air traffic control/FAA which covers their infrastructure externalities. https://www.faa.gov/about/budget/aatf/ https://www.faa.gov/about/budget/aatf/
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  I think the main point about taxing aviation fuel is the competition against train industry rather than pollution.

Ericson2314 7y ago

Throw in some global carbon tax and I think that's a fine distance for rail. We really should only be using airlines for intercontinental travel.

atombender 7y ago

Norway has several very long railways -- it's a very long country. Oslo-Trondheim is about 500 km, Trondheim-Bodø about 700 km, Oslo-Bergen around 480 km. Taking the train instead of flying is a popular and relatively cheap activity in Norway. The rail journey, perhaps the Bergen route in particular, is prized for its scenic views. There's even a television program, famously broadcast on national TV, that shows the train journey in real time, filmed from a camera mounted on the front. (You can find it on YouTube. It's great, and it's spawned lots of imitators in places like Switzerland and Turkey.) Getting to the rest of Europe by rail (via Sweden) is similarly cheap and convenient as an alternative to flying, even if it's slower. None of these railways classify as high speed, of course.

heavenlyblue 7y ago

Paris-London takes 50% share because it’s 2-3x more expensive than flying if you don’t book in advance. And that’s also including the fact that this specific route also has the same level of security you’d get at the airport. Isn’t flight industry heavily subsidised, too?