 |
High Speed Trains between Canberra and Sydney
Matthew James, Technology Adviser,
Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Group
Denis James, Transport Adviser,
Economics, Commerce and Industrial Relations Group
Contents
Major Issues
History
Train Technology
- TGV
- Tilt trains
- Maglev
- Seraphim
Speedrail
Competitors
- Maglev
- Tilt trains
- State Rail Authority
- Road and Air Transport
Issues
Economic Analysis
References
On December 4, 1996, the Prime Minister announced to Parliament that
the Commonwealth had decided to proceed with a joint Commonwealth-New
South Wales-ACT approach to the investigation of options to provide a
commercially viable high speed train service. The Prime Minister stated
that any future Commonwealth involvement in the project will be on the
basis of no net cost to the taxpayer and the project demonstrating its
commercial viability. He further stated that the Commonwealth would establish
a competitive tender process and seek expressions of interest from interested
parties. The Commonwealth would participate in a joint project control
group with New South Wales and the ACT to oversight the tender process,
according to the Prime Minister's statement.
The idea of a very fast train operation between Sydney and Canberra has
a long history, especially in the context of earlier feasibility studies
for a service between Melbourne and Sydney. A general lack of governments'
willingness to commit to rail resources has not assisted plans. Most serious
effort has involved consideration of the use of French high speed train
technology based on the 'TGV' system to provide an 80 minute service,
currently the subject of the Speedrail proposal. The TGV is an established
high speed train technology, which commenced operations in France in the
early 1980s, but is now in widespread use in many west European countries.
The proven French technology however requires a high-density corridor
and wide financial support for the concept to proceed, given the considerable
investment required.
Other possible train technologies include overseas high speed railway
operations, proven tilting trains and prototype magnetic levitation schemes.
However, the former types do at least require an existing right of way
with few curves plus quality trackwork and signalling. The Canberra-Sydney
corridor does not possess these features, as evidenced by its current
operations. Upgrade of the existing railway to enable tilt train operation
would require expenditure of the order of $400 million. Some observers
have questioned the viability of more advanced rail technologies such
as magnetic levitation on the grounds that they are both technologically
and commercially unproven at this stage. Another issue is the mix of passenger
and any freight traffic, along with existing services.
The Speedrail consortium proposes the completion of a largely new right
of way, of high standard, between the capitals, with a planned expenditure
of from $1.6 to $2.6 billion. With hourly services, priced at about $75
for economy fares, it aims to capture passengers from existing rail, air,
car and bus markets to ensure the project's feasibility. While French
train builder GEC Alsthom has committed $200 million for the project,
it appears that this amount is for the vehicles only, which the company
could sell if the venture failed. Speedrail proposes operation by 2001,
but only with the approval of all governments under a set regulatory and
standards regime.
Previous government reviews of very fast trains provide guidance on matters
of community concerns, land use and development, environmental issues
and economic effects. Controls over land acquisition, route selection
and noise and safety standards appear warranted, along with a coordinated
Environmental Impact Statement by all involved governments. It remains
unclear whether Speedrail can gain the private finance that it requires.
Finally, the economic viability of the project remains uncertain and
governments require indemnity from claims should the venture make a loss.
Assessments of viability are very much dependent upon estimates of the
number of journeys likely to be made each year. Figures quoted by Speedrail
show that initial patronage could be as high as 3.84 million journeys
per annum. On the basis of such figures, Speedrail would be self financing.
However, a study commissioned by a NSW, ACT and Commonwealth secretariat
has indicated that patronage could be as low as 1.82 million journeys.
At this level of demand, establishing the service would require a capital
injection of public funds in excess of $1 billion, with recurrent public
funding of around $400 million per annum for the first five or six years
of operation. Speedrail has announced a further $7 million feasibility
study to clarify such issues.
Current proposals for an advanced passenger railway operation between
Sydney and Canberra stem from earlier efforts directed towards establishing
such a system between State Capital Cities. In October 1981 the Institution
of Engineers, Australia, proposed a Bicentennial High Speed Railway Project
linking the five capitals of south-eastern Australia. The first stage
involved improvements to the Canberra-Sydney route and the use of diesel-electric
locomotives, to reduce train times from the prevailing five hours to three
hours. The proposal did not gain government acceptance, but studies continued
in CSIRO.
Out of this work grew a proposal for a Very Fast Train (VFT): a totally
new, purpose-built rail link between Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney, using
proven French 'TGV' rail technology. A 'joint venture' comprising BHP,
Elders IXL, Kumagai and TNT promoted the scheme as a passenger railway
to compete with all existing transport services. CSIRO studies emphasised
the need for new track, as fast trains of the TGV type can negotiate hills
with relatively steeper gradients than existing railways, thus minimising
earthwork costs. A 1984 report stated that the Sydney-Canberra VFT journey
would take an hour.
In 1986, the VFT Joint Venture emerged, comprising TNT, Elders IXL and
Japan's Kumagai Gumi. It completed a pre-feasibility study in June 1987,
a passenger market analysis in August 1988, a concept report in December
1988, a progress report in October 1989 and an economic assessment and
evaluation in October and November 1990. Under considerable scrutiny,
the Joint Venture initially promoted a coastal route via Canberra, Cooma
and the Cann River Valley, leading to strong environmental objections;
but it finally accepted an inland route via Canberra, Wagga and Albury,
as a precursor to a greater network. A favourable Senate Committee review
ended in mid 1991.
The VFT partners promoted the scheme as a private sector venture, subject
to special taxation arrangements which recognised the long pay back periods
associated with major infrastructure projects. In August 1991, Federal
Cabinet rejected the joint venture's taxation treatment proposals, despite
VFT arguments noting the long term $10 billion investment required. The
VFT Joint Venture subsequently folded, but in 1993 plans for a new Sydney-Canberra
line re-emerged from the Speedrail Pty Ltd Joint Venture, comprising an
engineering consultancy, project managers and Anglo-French company GEC-Alsthom.
Speedrail's proposal also relied on TGV technology, suggesting a travel
time of 80 minutes. A feasibility study began in June 1994, receiving
multi-government financial support, while alternative proposals and train
technologies also began to emerge.
High speed trains operate at speeds above 200 km/hr, sometimes on upgraded
conventional track designed to handle mixed freight and passenger traffic
and sometimes on purpose built, dedicated high speed track. They tend
to be most economic over distances from 160 km to 800 km, above which
aircraft have significant travel time advantages for passengers. Where
very high speed trains operate at speeds of 300 km/hr or above, they require
separate rights of way of precise tolerance and clearance from slower
freight traffic. The chief technological limitations on train speed are
from aerodynamic effects, sound shocks, and wheel friction. These problems
are overcome by the TGV, tilt train, Maglev and Seraphim designs.
TGV
The French train à grande vitesse (TGV) system incorporates a
number of innovations including line design, aerodynamic rolling stock
and reliable network control. It utilises overhead power supply and specialised
continuous signalling and relatively steep gradients to avoid costly tunnels
and earthworks. Train operation permits four minute spacing at peak periods
at speeds of over 270 km/hr. While the TGV system was initially quite
an operational and financial success, in recent years some planned extensions
in France have met with resistance from governments and anti-development
groups. Nonetheless, the TGV system forms part of a wider network of high
speed European trains extending from the Netherlands to Belgium, France,
Germany, Britain, Italy and Switzerland.
Recent TGV upgrades have featured onboard computerised control systems,
fewer motors and better braking for use on new cross-country routes. Note
that TGV can operate at lower speeds on existing railway track although
some track modifications may be necessary. A derivative of the TGV provides
Channel Tunnel service as the Eurostar train, while Spain has purchased
TGV rolling stock for use on its special high speed routes. The Republic
of Korea is constructing a TGV line to serve the Seoul-Pusan corridor.
However, TGV only remains suitable for countries with available credit,
high-density corridors and valid reasons for building a high speed line
mainly for passenger use (UN 1988, 23).
It is also necessary to mention other counterparts such as the Japanese
Shinkansen and German ICE trains. The latest Japanese electric units enable
operational travel at 300 km/hr, while the German ICE trains travel at
250 km/hr. High speed trains also operate in Belgium, Italy, Spain and
Britain, for example the British Intercity 125 diesel units. All of these
systems have successfully provided safe, rapid and consistent passenger
service for many years, although not always without considerable capital
and ongoing operational public investment support. There has been some
interest in Canada and the United States in building high speed rail systems,
with various proposals underway in Florida, Ontario and Pennsylvania.
Nonetheless, the TGV holds the world rail speed record of 515 km/hr.
Tilt trains
Tilt trains have suspension systems that allow them to take curves at
greater speeds than usual. They have operated for some years in Europe
using traction bogies with radially self-steering axles and a car body
tilt control system, all under computer control. Tilt trains have extra
brakes to cope with the higher speeds involved compared to standard units.
The European companies Siemens and Adtranz (formerly Asea Brown Boveri;
ABB) offer tilt train versions using Italian and Swedish technology.
In those countries, tilt trains have offered an economic solution to
allow at least 25 per cent faster services on existing curvilinear routes
without having to invest in new high speed train rights of way. Germany
is presently introducing tilt trains on a number of regional routes which
cannot justify upgrading to ICE standard. France is investigating use
of tilt train services to supplement its existing TGV network.
Maglev
Maglev is a generic term for a family of technologies in which magnetic
forces suspend, guide and propel a vehicle, unlike the electromechanical
techniques used by normal trains. Although conceived over thirty years
ago, research and development has taken some time, with virtually all
effort in Germany and Japan. At this stage, there are no long distance
Maglev train services in commercial operation, so the economics of the
technology remain unclear. A Maglev vehicle's magnets lock into a magnetic
wave created by an alternating current fed to windings along the guideway.
Variation of the electrical energy along the guideway controls speed to
provide direct linear motion rather than rotational, conventional wheel
motion to speeds up to 400 km/hr.
Maglev utilises an advanced system in which trains float above a guide
rail due to a powerful magnetic force created by a linear induction motor.
The linear motor operates like an ordinary cylindrical motor split down
the middle and stretched out along the track. The train wraps around the
guideway so that it cannot fly off and, as there are no wheels, noise
is minimal and mostly due to air flows. Maglev trains use around thirty
per cent less energy than standard trains at the same speed, and far less
than cars or planes. Magnetic fields inside train cabins equal the Earth's
field, but do change rapidly; a possible health concern. Maglev trains
can reach 500 km/hr speeds and negotiate grades as steep as ten per cent
with a track radius of 2.2 km for a speed of 300 km/hr; half the radius
for TGV.
The levitation system uses the attractive and repulsive magnetic forces
of electromagnets in the vehicle for suspension and guidance, while a
synchronous long-stator motor provides propulsion and braking along the
guideway. An electric travelling wave field generated by current in the
windings of the stator cores pulls the vehicle along by attracting its
suspension magnets, which also act as the exciter section of the linear
motor. A given section is energised only when the train is crossing it
to minimise energy losses. The first operational Maglev system operated
at Birmingham Airport as a shuttle in 1984.
There are, however, two types of magnetic levitation: electromagnetic
as used by Maglev and electrodynamic as applied by Japan. The electromagnetic
system (EMS) relies on attraction between vehicle mounted electromagnets
and others on the underside of the guideway to counter the weight of the
train. The electrodynamic system (EDS) uses a greater gap with repelling
superconducting magnets to counter vehicle weight, allowing less precision
in guideway construction giving poorer ride quality. An EDS version in
Japan came to grief in 1995 when a superconducting magnet failed, sending
the train crashing onto its track. Another newer Japanese proposal involves
an EMS configuration of magnets. Meanwhile, the German Maglev EMS has
completed 150 000 kilometres of trips in experimental service.
Seraphim
Recently, engineers at the Sandia National Laboratories at Albuquerque,
New Mexico have developed a way to operate an electromagnetically propelled
train on conventional tracks (Kleiner 1996, 32-6). This segmented rail
phased induction motor (Seraphim) operates on wheels at 300 km/hr over
conventional but modified tracks. Conventional rail propulsion depends
crucially on the friction between train wheels and the rail to drive the
train forward. As train speed increases so does wind resistance, such
that, by 300 km/hr, it is stronger than the frictional force, requiring
elevated tracks to enable the air to pass below the train.
The principle of electromagnetic induction is that a current is induced
in a conductor when a changing magnetic field is applied. The current
sets up a magnetic field in opposition to the original field, resulting
in a force that pushes the magnet away. To utilise this principle, rail
tracks would have a series of aluminium plates or an adjacent segmented
aluminium rail along the track, costing $0.2 million per kilometre. Seraphim's
motors would consist of pairs of electromagnets arranged so that the segmented
rail passed through the gap between them as the train moved along the
track. Complex switching on the electromagnets as each segment passed
between them would propel the train forward. Each locomotive would have
up to thirty electromagnets powered by an on-board gas turbine generator.
However, large development problems remain including the complex switching,
shielding passengers from the magnetic fields, resonance noise, cooling
and wheel friction. Without levitation, the Seraphim train would subject
track beds and rails to considerable wear. The gas turbine generator would
add weight, mobile pollution and energy costs. Its linear induction motor
would also add weight, unlike Maglev linear synchronous motors. Matters
of brakes for safety also arise. Unlike Maglev, Seraphim could use existing
tracks if ever proven.
Speedrail is a proposal for a new, very high speed, electric TGV rail
service between Canberra and Sydney and major centres along its route,
taking 80 minutes for an hourly service. The 270 km Speedrail route runs
from near Canberra Airport, through North Canberra towards Goulburn and
on to a Southern Highlands stop, then to Campbelltown or Glenfield, Kingsford
Smith Airport and Central. It utilises the existing rail network in Sydney
from Central to Campbelltown and 220 km of purpose-built, dedicated 350
km/hr alignment built close to the Hume and Federal Highways. The route
avoids towns and has few major bridges, with tunnels only within Eastern
Sydney.
In 1995, the Commonwealth, ACT and NSW Governments joined with Speedrail
to fund project feasibility studies which appear to confirm its viability
under current taxation law. The studies found that in 1994, the corridor
attracted 10.2 million one-way trips, at a growth rate of ten per cent
annually. Speedrail predicts its service to provide 4.3 million one-way
trips in 2000, after a planned expenditure of $1.6 to 2.6 billion. Speedrail
proposes economy fares of around $75, set at about half the equivalent
air fares, along with discount categories. It sees benefits in fast, comfortable
and affordable transport to boost tourism and regional growth. Another
possible benefit is the use of Canberra as an international airport to
alleviate stress of congestion at Sydney Airport. Air passengers arriving
in Canberra could complete customs and immigration formalities on the
train, just as occurs now on the Channel Tunnel Eurostar service. This
would also help avoid any airport delays due to fog or curfews.
Among technical factors considered in the proposal are safety, noise,
earthworks, curves and operations. Speedrail notes the safe operating
record of high speed trains in other nations which could apply here. It
claims that noise effects are no worse than for existing trains and would
have less duration, albeit with greater service frequency. Construction
costs would not have to include the deep cuttings and high embankments
required by standard railways. Such earthworks standards would preclude
shared operation with conventional freight trains although it would not
preclude freight services for relatively non-bulky, high value-to-weight
freight and time critical freight items. The line would have very high
radii for both horizontal and vertical curves compared with current values.
It would use a design speed of 350 km/hr to cater for future speed improvements.
In September 1996, media reports suggested that Speedrail sought $7 million
for a comprehensive project viability study to investigate routes, environmental
impact and social needs. This was despite a preliminary tri-Government
study that reputedly suggests a need for $1.3 billion of public funds,
plus a further $406 million over five years to subsidise operating costs.
This figure arises from a patronage estimate of 1.8 million one-way trips,
compared to other estimates of 3.8 to 2.8 million single trips. Nonetheless,
GEC Alsthom has undertaken to invest more than $200 million in the project.
Of the total project cost, about 15 per cent would be spend on trains
such as GEC Alsthom supplies. Should the venture fail, they would be in
a position to sell the trains to other countries.
The three elements of expected revenues, construction and operating costs
were the subject of a financial analysis that incorporated forecasts of
future interest and inflation rates. Following a travel survey, the Institute
of Transport Studies at the University of Sydney prepared demand and revenue
forecasts for Speedrail. Preparation of the capital cost estimate has
included consideration of land acquisition, services relocation, materials,
power, network controls, stations and support areas, bridges, earthworks,
track laying, trainsets and management. The operating cost analysis includes
train and support crews, control centre, customer service, power, maintenance
and administrative costs.
According to Speedrail, following final approvals, construction employing
13,000 people could commence in 1998, for completion by late 2001. It
would serve almost four million people, with a majority of the project
funding spent in Australia. Further engineering, environmental, economic
and heritage studies await completion by late 1996, followed by finance
procurement. There is a specific opportunity to improve the existing SRA
railway between Menangle and Mittagong through joint development with
Speedrail. This 30 km shared section would save about 18 km compared to
the current circuitous route via Picton. In the future, Speedrail believes
that its network could extend to Melbourne, Adelaide, Newcastle, the Gold
Coast and Brisbane.
Before then, Speedrail claims that it requires both government approval
and support in order to attract and retain major private sector investment.
While it believes in the financial viability of the project, Speedrail
claims some unique requirements pertaining to the need for clear and unchanging
approval processes, straightforward regulations, and endorsed standards
for the construction and operation of high speed railways within Australia.
None of these apparently exist at present and the project's future rests
with the government agencies investigating the proposal, as do the futures
of projects put forward by other competing interests.
Once Speedrail announced its proposal, other interested parties announced
their own plans for the Sydney-Canberra corridor. The most visible competitor
was probably the Maglev consortium, while a rival group demonstrated operation
of a tilt train prototype on the route. As yet, there has been no suggestion
for a Seraphim service, but this may come out of Maglev proposals.
Maglev
The Transrapid Maglev in Germany aims to serve 14.5 million passengers
a year by 2010 with a ten-minute frequency over a distance similar to
Canberra-Sydney. Transrapid International is a consortium of major West
German corporations: Thyssen Henschel (TH), Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm
(MBB) and Krauss Maffei (KM) that have developed Maglev over twenty-five
years. Transrapid claims that its Australian system could complete 400
km/hr trips in 58 minutes, with three stops, at a cost of $4 billion.
It would use overhead tracks sitting on 20 metre high columns, perhaps
along the existing highway.
However, at this time, Maglev is not in commercial operation, nor totally
technologically proven, but only runs on a 31 km test track in Germany.
The German Government has promoted construction of a 283 km track Maglev
between Berlin and Hamburg under a $4.6 billion guiderail grant plus $2.6
billion of private funding. A planned 20 km service between Orlando Airport
and Disneyworld in Florida was cancelled when the cost estimate reached
US$1 billion. A 427 km Las Vegas-Anaheim proposal has also failed. The
Japanese Maglev has operated only on a 7 km test track, with no commercial
use as yet.
Tilt trains
During 1995, the NSW State Rail Authority trialed a Swedish X2000 tilting
train on the Canberra corridor, claiming notable travel time savings.
However, most of the savings came from the deletion of normal station
stops and special operational arrangements in the Sydney network to avoid
conflicts with suburban trains. The X2000 actually achieved standard trip
times of three hours and twenty minutes at best. The existing one-hundred-year-old
rail corridor has gross inadequacies resulting from high frequency of
tight curves and a very circuitous alignment, especially in the Southern
Highlands region, when compared to the Hume and Federal Highways. Existing
poor rail signalling, trackwork and management do not help efforts to
improve safe running times on the route.
According to press reports, various tilt train proposals are also in
the offing. ABB Daimler-Benz Transportation (Australia) Pty Ltd (Adtranz)
reportedly promotes a tilt train using existing track. The Spanish company
Talgo estimates that improvements to sections of the existing railway
to enable 220 km/hr travel could reduce travel time to 150 minutes still
competitive with aircraft, but at a cost of around $400 million. Improving
the track could involve expenditures from $794 to $1,350 million, says
Speedrail, while Adtranz claims only $200 million for a 150 minute trip.
Presumably these tilt trains would all be diesel, not electric and would
have to mix with slower freight haul mainline traffic, perhaps taking
between 200 and 250 minutes for the one-way trip, little better than existing
travel times.
State Rail Authority
At present, standard SRA passenger trains run along the corridor at speeds
averaging 80 km/hr taking four hours for the twice-daily 270 km trip.
This is a result of the line and operational deficiencies, well evident
when the 160 km/hr XPT trains, a British HST derivative, ran along the
route in the 1980s. SRA 'Countrylink' passenger services run at a deficit,
with common media reports of booking difficulties and service problems
experienced by users. The SRA has plans to provide improved services over
upgraded track in due course, but this will depend on NSW State Government
budget allocation which remain uncertain.
Road and Air Transport
By the year 2000, a dual carriageway highway will operate between Canberra
and Sydney, the first time such a road has existed between Australian
capital cities. Work is now underway on completing duplication of the
last two sections of single carriageway on the Federal Highway. When completed,
this work should allow a consistent three-hour travel time for private
cars (80 per cent of trips) and buses (8 per cent) taking passengers between
the capitals. Hourly bus services already provide the bulk of cheap surface
public transport movement, rather than the slower and more costly rail
services which only handle 2 per cent of intercity trips at present. Speedrail
predicts a 20 per cent shift of car and bus passengers to its services,
plus all SRA train travellers.
Australian airlines carry 6 per cent of corridor travellers, taking total
journey times, including allowance for check-in plus Sydney airport delays
and city connections, of 2 to 3 hours. Speedrail expects to take two-thirds
of airline market share, due to the provision of more reliable and cheaper
services at similar timeframes. Airlines will, however, no doubt respond.
Analysis of the earlier VFT proposal provides some guidance in assessing
the feasibility of the current Speedrail and other claims. The fact that
the VFT idea foundered serves to show that such schemes are not necessarily
guaranteed of success, whether for good or bad reasons. There are wider
issues than high speed rail proponents tend to flag that bear on their
proposals, as appeared during VFT scoping studies and government reviews
of them.
Reviews
In 1990-91, the Victorian Government Very Fast Train Review Panel inquired
into the social, environmental and economic issues relevant to the VFT.
This included matters of land acquisition and compensation relating to
development, infrastructure requirements, land use and access, economic
and employment impacts, community amenity and social impacts, as well
as a range of environmental issues. While supporting the proposal, it
was cautious about the development of the VFT and its effects on the factors
listed above. In the event, suspicions of a dubious land acquisition practices
appear, in part, responsible for a strong, public anti-VFT lobbying campaign
that no doubt assisted the proposal's demise.
The Senate Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure
conducted an inquiry, from 1989 to 1991, into aspects of the proposal
for a very fast train. Its final report made recommendations on the need
for public comment on environmental impacts, protection for the Commonwealth
in the event of project failure, study of the relationship between a VFT
and a Fast Freight Train (FFT) plus the shared use of the VFT corridor,
as well as scrutiny of noise and safety standards. In its favourable view
of the project, the Committee did not assess the matter of economic viability,
but it did rule out use of Maglev over the longer corridor route. However,
possible joint usage of the shorter corridor was a matter of prime importance
to the Committee.
In 1989, the ACT Government established a VFT Advisory Committee to undertake
its own analysis of the issues. The Committee addressed matters of routing,
urban and rural impacts, economic analysis, social effects, commercial
viability, public consultation, noise and government finances. In June
1990, the Committee presented its final report having many specific recommendations
concerning environmental impacts, financial implications, public interest
aspects and social impacts. While generally supportive of the VFT concept,
the Committee urged further in depth study and community consultation
on matters such as fair dealing practice, noise effects, safety matters,
land acquisition and tax incentives.
It is not clear to what extent the NSW Government has reviewed any VFT
proposals. Recent press reports suggest that the NSW SRA has acted to
delay and frustrate Speedrail's proposal as the latter project would undoubtedly
serve to cancel existing rail passenger services. This would leave the
SRA providing only freight services on the route, unless these too were
offered by Speedrail, as vaguely proposed at this stage. The NSW Government
has tended not to make clear statements either way on any proposals. It
would be foolish for Speedrail to proceed without clear NSW, ACT and Commonwealth
Government approval along with resolution of the freight and FFT issue.
Impacts
Analysis of the aforementioned government reviews allows some assessment
of probable impacts of Speedrail's proposal. An economic analysis appears
in the next section. Among the issues considered here are land acquisition,
infrastructure effects, community issues and environmental aspects. None
of these matters seem to offer insurmountable barriers.
The ACT and Victorian reviews recommended that leasing of land along
the corridor may offer a fair deal for landowners, the public interest
and project operators. Nonetheless, government power over land acquisition
would still be necessary, along with a means to share equitably any changes
in land value between operators and the community, noting the leasehold
system in the ACT. A joint government approach to the project is necessary.
The ACT review indicated a need for considerable work on route definition
to avoid local disruption. As well, it cited a need for further investigation
of greater cross-track or underpass access for emergency use, humans,
fauna, native and farm animals. The Senate and ACT Reviews urged the imposition
of national noise and safety standards for high speed rail. Matters of
visual amenity, electricity supply and technology transfer also arise.
Among social impacts, we might expect a boost to the ACT economy along
with better linkages to Sydney and the region. However, in the absence
of appropriate land use planning controls, the project might also encourage
unwanted corridor development and urban sprawl. The need for public consultation
throughout the project remains. The Senate and Victorian reviews note
the need to preclude financial intervention by Government if the project
fails.
Among environmental effects, apart from severance factors mentioned above,
are the need for control of weeds, soil erosion, siltation, drainage and
dust. Heritage and archaeological sites will also require protection.
The Victorian Review notes the need to avoid reserves, remnant native
vegetation and wetlands. The ACT Review found a need for coordinated Environmental
Impact Statement by all governments concerned with the project.
It is difficult at this stage to fully assess the economic viability
of the various high speed rail proposals put forward for the Canberra-Sydney
corridor. While there would appear to be a reasonable amount of certainty
about the costs of providing such services, the potential revenues involved
are far from easy to predict. Furthermore, the attractiveness of any proposal
to the Governments of the Commonwealth, NSW and the ACT will reflect the
financial demands that a project might impose upon the public purse. These
issues, among others, have been canvassed in the report prepared by a
secretariat appointed by the three Governments. The report was presented
to the Governments concerned at the end of September 1996, but since it
contains information that is 'commercial in confidence', it has not been
publicly released. However, it would appear that the report has cast doubt
on the economic viability of both the very high speed train and the tilt
train proposals.
The Speedrail consortium has suggested that the cost of providing its
high speed train link between Sydney and Canberra will be between $2 and
$2.6 billion. Of the estimated capital cost of the Speedrail proposal,
around 85 per cent would be spent on civil engineering and fixed installations
with the remaining 15 per cent relating to the trains. The cost of the
Transrapid project has been reported as being as high as $4 billion, although
even this figure is somewhat surprising as this would imply that the Canberra-Sydney
project would be costing only around one-half of the similar-length system
between Berlin and Hamburg.
Both Speedrail and Transrapid are estimating the standard, one-way economy
fare between Sydney and Canberra to be approximately $75. However, Speedrail
has indicated, as one might expect, that a range of discount fares would
also be made available. At these fare levels, both systems would expect
to generate a substantial amount of patronage. This patronage would have
several sources.
Firstly, there would be some diversion of travellers from existing alternatives.
Such a diversion is likely to be at the expense of the airlines, coach
services and existing train services. Many travellers who use private
transport may weigh up the convenience of having a vehicle to get around
in once they have reached their destination. Given that a car can hold
several passengers, the cost per passenger of a car journey may also be
relatively low. Coach and train services are currently cheaper than the
mooted high speed train fare, but journey times are considerably longer.
The train would be expected to compete mainly with the airlines. In terms
of total travel time (including the journeys to and from the airport),
the train would essentially match the airlines. The problems of curfews
and delays at Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport, the impact of fog and other
weather conditions on airline services between Canberra and Sydney and
possible user perceptions of greater safety with rail transport would
further enhance the attractiveness of high speed rail. Furthermore, the
proposed high speed train fare is around one-half of the airline economy
fare. It might be noted that Speedrail has tended to play down the possible
impact of a high speed rail service on the provision of freight services
between the two cities, but this could well prove to be a further area
of competition with other transport modes.
A second group of potential users are those who may be induced to undertake
travel they might previously not have undertaken. This could occur if
the time/price mix offered by the high speed train encourages travel that
would not have been undertaken at the higher time/price mix on offer from
other transport modes. Some travellers may even be attracted to the service
because of its special or 'novel' characteristics. If the train service
were to complement increased use of Canberra airport by international
and domestic travellers (and perhaps even freight consignors), this could
be a further source of induced demand.
Speedrail also points to the rapid growth in demand for travel. It notes
that travel to Canberra has been growing at between 15 and 20 per cent
per annum, while the number of international visitors to Australia has
been estimated to increase by between 8 and 15 per cent per annum over
the period to 2000. The existence of a high speed train service is seen
as attracting a significant proportion of this travel market. On the basis
of its market surveys to date, Speedrail estimates that by the year 2000,
as many as one quarter of all persons making journeys between Sydney and
Canberra would use the high speed train. It is even estimated that 14
per cent of private vehicle users would be likely to switch to rail. Two
studies have been undertaken of initial potential passenger numbers. One
study, undertaken by French National Railway System analysts (Sofrerail),
put likely patronage at 2.82 million per annum, while Sydney University's
Institute of Transport Studies put the figure at 3.84 million.
The Report of the three-State secretariat apparently questions the likelihood
that such patronage will be generated. A study commissioned by the secretariat
indicates that as few as 1.82 million trips per year would be made on
the train. Whilst acknowledging that the project would be economically
viable if patronage figures were as high as those put forward by Speedrail,
the secretariat allegedly claims that, on its lower figures, the project
would not be attractive to private investors. Premier Bob Carr is reported
as saying that the project would require over $1 billion of public money
to get it started and recurrent annual injections of around $400 million
over a five to six year period to run it. These estimates do not include
the cost to the Commonwealth of tax concessions associated with infrastructure
bonds. Given the crucial importance of patronage estimates in judging
the viability of the project, Speedrail has stated that it intends to
undertake a $7 million market research and viability assessment study
to clarify this issue, hopefully once and for all.
The policy position taken by all Governments concerned is that no direct
public funding should be expected for the project. However, the Minister
for Transport, Mr Sharp, has been quoted as stating that the Speedrail
project would be eligible to raise finance through infrastructure bonds
and that this could cost the Commonwealth many millions of dollars. Speedrail
claims that, if its estimates of patronage are correct, the only direct
government financial input it would require would be the resumption of
any private land required for the right of way and for the construction
of two platforms. It is estimated that this would cost $100 million. Speedrail
has suggested that government (mainly the NSW Government) should borrow
the funds to purchase this land, with Speedrail paying them back at one
percent over the government borrowing rate. This proposal has reportedly
not found favour with the NSW Government.
The Governments concerned have stated that they would leave any high
speed rail proposal up to the private sector to implement. In the case
of Speedrail and Maglev, these projects could well be managed privately
since they would involve their own tracks and rolling stock. However,
it is difficult to see how a tilt train proposal could operate without
a substantial amount of public sector involvement. The major cost advantage
of the tilt train scheme is that it can utilise existing track, which
implies quite a deal of coordination with NSW State Rail. In fact, unlike
the two very high speed rail proposals, there would appear to be little
interest on the part of the tilt train manufacturers to operate services
between Sydney and Canberra. These manufacturers seem content simply to
sell the appropriate train sets to State Rail.
However, even the tilt train proposal is not without its costs. Apart
from the cost of the train sets themselves, around 70 km of track would
have to be substantially upgraded simply to enable the journey time to
be reduced to around 2 hours. The capital cost of establishing a tilt
train service could be as high as $1.3 billion. While this cost is lower
than that of the two very high speed train proposals, it would be false
economy if the tilt train were to generate a lower rate of return than
the other contenders. Given the major improvements which have been made
to the Hume Highway, travel times on the tilt train would not be significantly
less than road travel times and certainly would not be competitive with
the airlines. Whether the tilt train would attract sufficient patronage
to justify its cost would appear doubtful.
Certainly, there might be a case for operating tilt trains on other routes
within NSW where extensive track upgrading would not be required. State
Rail might therefore see some advantages in acquiring tilt trains and
using them more extensively over their rail network, including the Canberra-Sydney
route. The tilt train option might appear even more attractive to State
Rail if the purchase of such trains could be financed by infrastructure
bonds, although at this stage all applications for infrastructure bond
approval from the Development Allowance Authority have been put on hold.
Addendum 16 January 1997
The risk guarantee aspects of the project include wider commercial considerations
than discussed in the paper. There are certain commercial requirements
for projects of this nature.
There is new information to hand on a TGV-type high speed system linking
Miami, Orlando and Tampa. However, the Florida project remains a proposal
at this stage.
The CIB paragraph on Maglev noise states that it "is minimal and mostly
due to air flows"; in other words the principal source of noise is aerodynamic
flow. A video provided by Transrapid Maglev clearly demonstrates that
its noise levels are lower than comparable high speed trains. An independent
noise measurement alongside railway right-of-ways provided the results
that, at a speed of 300 km/hr, Maglev was 84 dB, ICE high speed train
87 dB and TGV type train 92 dB, with the latter two figures rising with
track wear. Note that a reading of 3 extra decibels (dB) means a doubling
of the sound pressure level.
While GEC ALSTHOM has indicated a willingness to invest "up to $200 million",
it has already spent some extra funds on feasibility studies. In any event,
most press reports stated that the company would spend "more than $200
million". This is a choice of words really.
Above the CIB states that "Speedrail expects to take two-thirds of airline
market share" plus a 20 per cent shift of car and bus passengers to its
services. However, it appears that Speedrail will actually draw most patronage
from road travel, yet take pressure off Sydney Airport and contribute
to the further development of Canberra Airport.
ABB 1990, The Swedish High Speed Train: A New Era of Inter-City Travel,
Asea Brown Boveri Traction, Vasteras, Sweden.
ACTVFTAC 1990, Report on the Very Fast Train Project: Public Consultation
and Major Issues, ACT VFT Advisory Committee, Report to Chief Minister,
Canberra, April.
Budd, D., 1994, 'Speedrail: a new High Speed Railway between Sydney and
Canberra', Reforms in Urban Transport Conference, Sydney, March.
Budd, D., 1995, 'Speedrail: high-speed rail in time for the Olympics?,
Transport Engineering in Australia, vol.1, no.1, Institution of
Engineers, Australia, December.
Budd, D., Bosci, F. 1995, 'Speedrail: a new High Speed Railway between
Sydney and Canberra', Proceedings 2nd National Rail 2000 Conference,
Adelaide, April.
Maglev Transit 1990?, Magnetic Levitation Demonstration Project: Executive
Summary, Maglev Transit Inc, Tallahassee.
SSCTCI 1991, Aspects of the Proposal for a Very Fast Train, Senate
Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, Australian
Senate, Final Report, March.
UN 1988, New Transport Technologies: review of recent technological developments
in the land, air and maritime transport sectors, United Nations, ST/ESA/196:E.88.II.A.14,
Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, New York.
VFTRP 1991, Final Report, Very Fast Train Review Panel, Report
to the Victorian Government, Melbourne, June.
|
 |
