Possible corridors for a Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney-Brisbane high speed railway. The solid line represents the preferred option; the dashed represents an alternative route.[1]
Proposals for High-speed rail infrastructure in Australia (where such projects are also known as Very Fast Trains) have been under active investigation since the early 1980s.[2] There is currently no such technology in active service in Australia; existing rail services between the east coast cities are slow, infrequent, and not realistically competitive with air travel. The fastest passenger services currently in operation are the CountryLink XPT in New South Wales, QR Tilt Train in Queensland, VLocity 160 in Victoria and the Transwa Prospector in Western Australia, all of which operate at a maximum of 160 km/h (99 mph) (significantly below the internationally accepted definition for High-speed rail of 200 km/h (120 mph)[3]).
Various combinations of the route between Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane have been the subject of detailed investigation by prospective operators, government departments and advocacy groups. Some have advocated extending this network as far as Adelaide[4][5] or even Perth.[6][7] Others advocate concentrating on shorter routes servicing dormitory towns of the major capitals (such as Wollongong, Geelong or Bunbury), possibly as a precursor to a full interstate link.
To date, no Australian high speed rail proposal has progressed past the planning stage. The long distances and difficult terrain between major population centres, low population density of the intervening regions, and present affordability of air travel make it difficult for such proposals to demonstrate financial viability.[1] However, their competitiveness is expected to increase with future population increases, particularly that in regional areas.[8]
The Australian Government has commissioned a A$20 million planning study into high-speed rail on an east coast high speed rail link, focusing particularly on the corridor between Newcastle and Sydney. The report is expected to be completed in 2011.[9][10]
The high-speed rail line in Australia could incorporate similar technologies as to those of the TGV (pictured) or Shinkansen
Because the development of railways in Australia pre-dated Federation, each state developed its own system with a different gauge and rolling-stock. The great distances between the colonies meant that planners gave little thought to connecting to other systems.[11] The result of this was a national network of several different gauges; this necessitated train changes at the break-of-gauge, prevented economies of scale, and in some cases eventually resulted in a very expensive standardisation. Despite these disadvantages, for a time rail was the preferred method of interstate travel in Australia. However, the advent of air travel and the private automobile gradually replaced rail as the major passenger services. Rail has been only a marginal passenger-market player in recent decades.
The construction of a high-speed rail link along the east coast of Australia has been under active investigation since at least 1980. Air dominates the inter-capital travel market, and intra-rural travel is almost exclusively car-based. Rail has a significant presence in the rural / city fringe commuter market, but inter-capital rail currently has very low market share due to low speeds and infrequent service.[12] However, the duration of travel between the capitals by HSR could be as quick or faster than air travel[13] - a 500 km/h Maglev train could reduce travel time from Melbourne to Sydney to about three hours, while the more conventional 350 km/h technology (such as TGV and Shinkansen) would take about four hours.[14][15] Various studies and recommendations have asserted that a high speed rail service between the major eastern capital cities could be viable as an alternative to air.[16][17][18][19] Although such studies have generated much interest from the private sector and captured the imagination of the general public upon their release, to date no private-sector proposal has been able to demonstrate financial viability without the need for significant governmental assistance.[20]
A mature HSR system would be economically competitive with air and automobile travel, provide mass transit without dependence on imported oil, have a duration of travel that would compare with air travel or be quicker, and would reduce national carbon dioxide emissions.[19][21][22]
There are a range of HSR routes being discussed in Australia.
These include long intercity routes (mainly along the east coast corridor) and shorter inner city routes, such as Sydney to Newcastle, Sydney to Penrith and Sydney to Macarthur.[citation needed]
East Coast corridor
The most frequently studied route for high-speed rail in Australia is between Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane. There are two broad corridor alignment options between each capital city on the route — a coastal and an inland corridor. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages from engineering, environmental, population and national development points of view.
Melbourne—Canberra
Inland — Exiting Melbourne via the existing Broadmeadows corridor, the line would cross the Dividing Range at Seymour. It would then join the existing North East railway corridor through Benalla and Wangaratta, which would require only minimal straightening. Albury would be approached either from the east via the River Murray flats, or from the south via a new corridor through Beechworth. North of Albury, the line would separate from the Hume Highway corridor, and either cut through the Brindabella Ranges direct to Canberra (which would require extensive tunneling), or divert north along the Main Southern railway to service the large regional centre of Wagga Wagga. Although this would be a longer route, the engineering costs would be lower due to the less mountainous terrain. After Wagga Wagga, the line would either continue on the Main Southern line to Cootamundra and Yass before entering Canberra from the north, or divert east through the Murrumbidgee River valley to a shorter tunnel under Brindabella, to enter Canberra from the west. Due to the better regional development opportunities along the inland corridor, and perhaps fewer environmental issues, the Arup/TMG study identified this corridor as the preferred alignment.[25]
Coastal — Exiting Melbourne via the broad-gauge Pakenham corridor, the line would traverse the generally flat Gippsland region, encompassing the towns of Traralgon, Sale, Bairnsdale and Orbost, before turning north into heavily dissected country. This climb from Gippsland to the Monaro region will necessitate numerous tunnels and viaducts, and possibly a prevailing grade of up to 3.5%. The line would generally follow the Monaro Highway to a summit of 1,070 m (3,510 ft) near Nimmitabel, and then continue on to Cooma and Queanbeyan. This alignment must necessarily pass through several National Parks and other regions of environmental significance, which could count against the selection of this corridor. Additionally, a station in central Canberra is difficult to achieve on this alignment; it would most likely have to be located at Canberra Airport or Queanbeyan.[26]
Canberra—Sydney
Inland — The railway would exit Canberra to the north or east on a new alignment, roughly following the Hume Highway corridor through Goulburn, Bowral and Campbelltown. Entry to metropolitan Sydney could be effected by utilising the existing East Hills Line via Sydney Airport.[27]
Coastal — This corridor would be the same until Goulburn, where the line would turn east towards Wollongong. This alignment would present major engineering challenges due to having to cross the Illawarra escarpment twice, necessitating a 40 km (25 mi) tunnel on the southern approach, and several 10 km (6.2 mi) tunnels on the northern exit from Wollongong. The line could then utilise the undeveloped M5 motorway corridor from Sutherland to Sydney Airport, from which it would use the subway system to reach Central Station.[28] Another option would be to go directly from Canberra to Nowra, thereafter continuing to Wollongong and Sydney.[29]
Over 9.2 million people would be served by a Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney high-speed rail network.
Sydney—Brisbane
Newcastle leg — Due to the density of existing development and the formidable terrain, there is no easy way of exiting Sydney to the north. One option is to use the North Shore line to reach Hornsby, whereupon a new alignment would follow the existing F3 Freeway corridor, cross Broken Bay via bridge or tunnel and enter Woy Woy and Gosford via a series of tunnels and viaducts. A second option is to tunnel from North Sydney directly to Woy Woy via a 40 km (25 mi) tunnel (making it one of the longest tunnels in the world). The alignment would then continue to Newcastle following the existing road and rail corridors. This route could use the iconic Sydney Harbour Bridge if two of the existing highway lanes were returned to rail use.[30]
Inland — From Newcastle, the line would transit the Hunter Valley through Singleton and Muswellbrook before crossing the Divide at Ardglen. After Tamworth, the line would have to climb to over 1,060 metres (3,480 ft) above sea level to reach the New England Tableland. After Armidale, it would climb even higher (peaking at 1,380 metres (4,530 ft) above sea level) before reaching Glen Innes, Tenterfield, Warwick and Toowoomba. The existing rail corridor on the Tableland would require extensive straightening and sections of new alignment. After Toowoomba, a favourable grade (albeit involving several 5–10 km tunnels) would take the railway through Ipswich and into Brisbane[31]
Coastal — This route would follow the coast through Taree, Port Macquarie, Coffs Harbour, Grafton, Lismore and the Gold Coast before entering Brisbane via the Gold Coast railway. Although there are no significant mountains to cross except the escarpment near the Queensland border, there are numerous major estuaries which will require long viaducts. This route is shorter than the inland option, presents less challenging engineering obstacles, and passes through regions of greater population density. For this reason the Arup-TMG study identified it as being slightly preferable to the inland route.[32]
If we are serious about it, we better get down to identifying the corridor, identifying geotechnical issues with the proposal.
In late 2008, Transrapid re-entered the Australian high-speed rail debate with a proposal put forward to the Government of Victoria to build a privately funded and operated Maglev line to service the Greater Melbourne metropolitan area.[34][35] It was presented as an alternative to the Cross-City Tunnel proposed in the Eddington Transport Report, which neglected to investigate above-ground transport options.
The proposed Maglev would connect the city of Geelong to metropolitan Melbourne's outer suburban growth corridors, Tullamarine and Avalon domestic and international terminals in under 20 minutes, continuing on to Frankston, Victoria in under 30 minutes. It would service a population of over 4 million, and Transrapid claimed a price of A$4 billion. However, the Victorian government dismissed the proposal in favour of the underground metropolitan network suggested by the Eddington Report.
Noosa-Gold Coast
The 2010 IPA report identified Noosa-Brisbane-Gold Coast as a potentially viable high-speed rail link, and a possible precursor to a full east-coast system.[36] The report predicted that a 350kph system would reduce travel times between Cooroy (22 km west of Noosa) and Brisbane to 31 minutes (currently 2:08 hours), capturing as much as 84% of the total commuter market. Travel time between Brisbane and the Gold Coast would be reduced to 21 minutes, capturing up to 27% of commuters.
The proposed service would have a maximum speed of 160 km/h, at which the travel time from Perth Underground to a new station in central Bunbury would be 91 minutes. However, the notional corridor allows for future upgrade to 200 km/h.
Challenges
Geographic issues
Crossing the Hawkesbury River would present significant engineering challenges in the construction of a high speed railway to the north of Sydney.
Though Australia has no large mountain ranges, such as in Japan or Europe, the engineering challenges involved in constructing an east coast high-speed railway are formidable. The most direct route between the major destinations is also the most mountainous, and no route can avoid the Great Dividing Range altogether. High Speed railways require very long radius curves (generally greater than 5 km) and low gradients (generally no greater than 1.5%). Viaducts and tunnels will be required on any section passing through undulating countryside. Key challenges include the western approach to Canberra through the Brindabella Ranges,[38] the northern exit from Sydney through Kuring-gai Chase National Park[32] and across Broken Bay, the Great Dividing Range near Armidale,[39] and the Border Ranges on approach to Brisbane.[39]
Though some existing track is sufficiently straight, the quality and flatness of track required by HSR necessitates major upgrades. The speed of such trains precludes the use of level crossings and necessitates measures to exclude trespassers and animals from the track.[40]
The size and density of the major cities' suburban areas creates challenges, as the line reaches the central business districts. The HSR will have to either share existing corridors with other transport services, possibly augmented by additional land acquisitions, or build an entirely new underground corridor.[41]
Environmental concerns
Brindabella Valley, west of Canberra, is a region of environmental significance which a high-speed rail corridor may need to traverse.
A HSR link has also been advocated on the grounds that it will cut greenhouse gas emissions, primarily by reducing air travel.[42] In Australia, air travel accounts for the highest greenhouse gas emission per passenger-kilometre—240 g—followed by automobiles at 225 g and buses at 75 g. If powered by existing coal power infrastructure, HSR is predicted to emit 150 g per passenger-kilometre, but this could be reduced to 40 g by powering the system with either renewable or nuclear energy.[43][44]
The impact of the railway on sensitive environmental areas such as national parks and wetlands has also been an issue. Any HSR line along the east coast will necessarily have to traverse national parks and other areas of high environmental and cultural value; How severely is affected by engineering and corridor selection decisions. Previous HSR proposals have failed, in part because of green groups' opposition to corridor alignments.[1][45]
Economics
It is unlikely that an Australian HSR system would be viable on a privately-funded basis alone. Although ridership on a full Melbourne to Brisbane link is forecast to be similar to Taiwan's privately funded HSR system (around 100,000 per day), the Australian system would be about six times longer than the Taiwanese system with correspondingly higher capital costs. The most likely funding arrangement is therefore either government-as-developer or a public-private partnership.[46]
Project costs
In 1990, the Melbourne—Sydney route would have costed A$7.5 billion according to predictions.[47] The 2001 Arup-TMG study concluded that a full Sydney—Brisbane HSR system would cost between A$32 billion to A$59 billion for systems in the range 250 km/h to 500 km/h, which would rank in the lower half of the cost of existing systems built overseas. The study also concluded that operating costs would be around 6-7 cents per passenger-kilometre.[1]
The Arup-TMG study expected project costs to average approximately A$25 million/kilometre. Similar new high speed train lines constructed internationally have had widely varying costs depending on the level of viaducting and tunneling. While the Paris-Lyon TGV was constructed for under A$10 million/km, most TGV lines in Europe cost around A$20 million/km, and the Taiwan High Speed Rail link cost over A$80 million/km.[1][48]
A 2010 study by Infrastructure Partnerships Australia concluded that the total cost of a high-speed rail link from Melbourne to the Sunshine Coast would be $80 billion.[36] Within this, it predicted that land acquisition would cost $13.7 billion in 2010, but that this would rise to $57 billion if the government waited until 2030. The report therefore advocated a near-term policy of corridor reservation.[49]
Benefits
Benefits from the implementation of high-speed rail would include:[50]
A mature HSR system in Australia could capture a significant market share from air travel. The following table assumes a 350 km/h system with 2051 population projections.[50]
Route
Market captured from Airlines
Trips per annum (2051)
Travel time
Sydney-Melbourne
49%
6,264,000
3:00hrs
Sydney-Brisbane
54%
3,577,000
2:53hrs
Sydney-Canberra
99%
11,948,000
0:57hrs
Sydney-Gold Coast
56%
2,506,000
2:26hrs
Brisbane-Melbourne
6%
248,000
5:53hrs
Melbourne-Gold Coast
8%
225,000
5:26hrs
The total demand-corridor for the high-speed railway would extend up to 300 km from the line, and the area under consideration covers an area over 2000 km in length. A mature HSR system could capture up to 15% of the total travel market within this area (including train, air, private car and bus transport).[54] Passenger throughput would be highest at Sydney, with over 40,000 passengers per day (both directions), followed by Melbourne, Brisbane, each with around 20,000 passengers per day, and Canberra with around 16,000.[55] Total daily ridership is forecast to be just under 100,000.[56]
Past proposals
The existing state of the Australian rail network has long been a target of proposals for improvement. The 1979 Premier's Meeting proposed the electrification of the Sydney-Melbourne line in order to improve transit time from over 12 hours to under 10, but a senate committee found this was not justified on economic grounds. In 1981, the Institution of Engineers proposed the Bicentennial High-Speed Railway Project, which proposed to link the five capitals of south-eastern Australia (Adelaide, Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane) in time for the Australian Bicentenary. However, it proposed only the strengthening and partial electrification of the existing tracks, and the purchase of new diesel-electric trains. It would offer only mild improvements on the existing travel times, and therefore could not be considered a true high-speed rail proposal.[2]
CSIRO proposal
Australia's first true high-speed railway proposal was presented to the Hawke Government in June 1984 by the CSIRO, spearheaded by Dr Paul Wild.[57] The proposal was for a rail network based on French TGV technology linking Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney in about 3 hours, via a coastal corridor. It was claimed that construction costs would be A$2.5 billion, with initial revenue of A$150 million per annum exceeding operating costs of only $50 million per annum. The proposal attracted much public and media attention, as well as some private sector capital for feasibility studies.[2][18][18]
In September 1984, the Bureau of Transport Economics found that the probable construction costs had been underestimated by $1.5 billion, and the proposal would therefore be uneconomic. The minister for Transport, Peter Morris, rejected the proposal.
Very Fast Train (VFT) Joint Venture
Later in 1984 Sir Peter Abeles, chairman of TNT, expressed interest in Dr Wild's proposal.
Two years later in September 1986, the Very Fast Train Joint Venture was established, comprising Elders IXL, Kumagai Gumi, TNT and later BHP, with Dr Paul Wild as chairman. They proposed a 350 km/h rail link from Sydney to Canberra via Goulburn, and then on to Melbourne via the coastal route (or alternatively the inland route). A $19 million feasibility study was initiated by the group in 1988. In 1989, after talks with the Queensland Government, the joint venture group expanded the VFT proposal to include Brisbane.
The VFT was opposed by numerous groups, notably the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Democrats.[2] Concerns centered around the environmental impact a coastal corridor would have on fragile ecosystems, noise pollution and the amount of public money that might be required.
Over the next several years, negotiations continued between the Joint Venture and state and federal governments. A favourable tax regime was sought, without which it was claimed that the project would not be economically viable. South Australian Premier John Bannon was among the vocal proponents of tax breaks for major infrastructure projects such as the VFT.[2] In August 1991, the Hawke Cabinet rejected the proposed tax breaks after it was claimed they would have cost A$1.4 billion. Subsequently the VFT Joint Venture folded.[1][2][58]
Speedrail proposal
In 1993, a proposal was made by the Speedrail Consortium for a high speed rail link between Sydney and Canberra. It was initially costed at A$2.4 billion. After years of delays and more claims that massive government subsidies would be required,[2] in March 1997 the Commonwealth, New South Wales and ACT governments formally invited expressions of interest for the project. Six proponents were in the running. In December 1997, the government received four proposals, all accompanied by the required A$100,000 deposit.[18] The proposals were:
Tilting trains on existing upgraded tracks by two groups: Capital Rail and Inter Capital Express
On 8 August 1998, Prime Minister John Howard announced that Speedrail was the preferred party,[59] and gave the go ahead for the project to move into the 'proving up' stage, on the understanding that if the project proceeded, it would be at "no net cost to the taxpayer". The proposal was for:
Construction of the project to commence in 2003, with 15,000 new jobs to be created during the construction period.
The line to operate under a Build Own Operate model, that would allow a private company to manage the network, but would then be transferred to government after 30 years.
Services to commence in late 2003, with nine eight-car trains in use, that depart from each city at 45 minute intervals, and run at a maximum of 320 km/h (199 mph) to complete the journey in 81 minutes.[59]
In November 1999, Speedrail submitted a feasibility study to the government, claiming that the project satisfied all the government's requirements. French TGV technology was to be used, and Qantas was to handle on-board services and ticketing.[60] However, the media still speculated that A$1 billion in government assistance or tax concessions would be required.[18] In December 2000, the federal Cabinet terminated the proposal due to fears it would require excessive subsidies.
After 2000
The Arup/TMG study recommended an inland route from Melbourne to Sydney, and a coastal route from Sydney to Brisbane.
East Coast Very High Speed Train Scoping Study Stage 1
In December 2000, the Howard Government commissioned TMG International Pty Ltd, leading a team of specialist subconsultants, including Arup and others, to prepare a study (cited herein as the Arup-TMG study)to investigate all aspects of the design and implementation of a HSR system linking Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane. The East Coast Very High Speed Train Scoping Study, which was released in November 2001 and cost A$2.3 million to prepare,[61] dealt with HSR technologies, corridor selection and analysis, operating performance and transit times, project costs, projected demand, financing, and national development impacts. The report also concluded that although a HSR system could have a place in Australia's transport future, it would require years of bipartisan political vision to realise, and would most likely require significant financial assistance from the government.[62]
As a result of the "high" potential cost to public funds (estimated at 80% of the total cost of construction) the government discontinued the scoping study in 2002.[61]
Canberra Business Council study
In April 2008, Infrastructure Australia received a submission, "High Speed Rail for Australia: An opportunity for the 21st century", from The Canberra Business Council. The CBC submission detailed:
Improvements in technology, competitiveness and supply over the previous decade.
Travel demand on the East Coast. The Melbourne - Sydney air route is the fourth busiest in the world and Sydney—Brisbane ranks seventh in the Asia-Pacific region.
Increased economic standard of living for Australians.
Use for freight. High speed freight trains are in use in France and soon to expand across Europe.
Environmental sustainability and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Energy efficiency.
Better social outcomes, quality of life, and reduced social disadvantage for regional centres on the rail line.
Canberra Airport plan
In 2009, Canberra Airport management proposed that it would be the most appropriate location for a second Sydney airport, providing a high speed rail link was built that could reduce travel times between the cities to 50 minutes. Given the existing development within the Sydney basin, a HSR link will probably be required whatever site is chosen, yet the Canberra option would potentially be cheaper overall, since it would negate the need to develop a greenfields airport site.[63]
Current political positions
In December 2008, the Rudd-Labor government announced that a Very Fast Train along the Sydney-Melbourne corridor, estimated to cost A$25 billion, was the government's highest infrastructure priority.[64][65][66]
The Government of Australia is currently preparing a A$20 million study into the construction of the difficult Sydney-Newcastle leg of an east coast high speed rail link. It will focus on detailed corridor and station selection, high-level costings, and look at options for extending the line to Brisbane, Canberra and Melbourne. The study is planned to commence in late 2010, the implementation study will be released in July 2011 and the final report in mid-2012.[67][68][69] The Labor Party initiative won the support of both the Liberal opposition and the Australian Greens, the latter of which called for the study's scope to be extended to encompass Adelaide and Perth.[7][70]
In the lead-up to the 2010 Victorian state election, Liberal leader Ted Baillieu promised to spend $4 million to set up a "High Speed Rail Advocacy Unit", with the goal ensuring the first true high-speed rail services in Australia are hosted in Melbourne. He expressed support for an east coast link, as well as extending the system west of Melbourne to Geelong and Adelaide.[5][71]
In late 2010, the Department of Infrastructure and Transport advised the Government that a HSR link would not be economically viable, but suggested that the Government begin purchasing land along a preferred corridor. The feasibility study on the Newcastle leg began in 2011.[72]
Soon after winning the 2011 NSW state election, the incoming Liberal premier Barry O'Farrell advocated high-speed rail lines to Melbourne and Brisbane instead of a second Sydney airport, saying of a new airport site in NSW: "Whether the central coast, the south-west or the western suburbs [of Sydney], find me an area that is not going to end up causing enormous grief to people who currently live around it".[73]
Medium speed services
Transwa Prospector, currently Australia's only HSR-capable rollingstockV/Line VLocity railcar
Australia has several medium-speed services in operation, all of which operate on existing track which has been upgraded in order to accommodate faster services and/or tilting technology.
In Western AustraliaWestrail began using high speed diesel railcars in 1971 on the Prospector service from Perth to Kalgoolie, and set a new Australian speed record.[citation needed] Now operated by Transwa, the railcars were replaced in 2004 with new units capable of 200 km/h (124 mph), although track condition currently limits their operational speed to 160 km/h (99 mph).[74] The same type of cars are also used on the AvonLink service.[75]
New South Wales commenced operations with their XPT in 1982. Based on the British InterCity 125 train, it has a service speed of 160 km/h (99 mph) and set an Australian speed record of 193 km/h (120 mph), on a test run in 1992.[76] The train is not often used to its full potential, operating along winding steam era alignments,[77] and at times has had the top speed limited due to track condition and level crossing incidents.
New South Wales trialled the Swedish X 2000 tilt train in 1995. Propelled by two specially modified XPT power cars, the train carried passengers between Sydney and Canberra, in an eight week trial.[78]
Queensland Rail's Tilt Trains operate on two routes: Brisbane to Rockhampton using an electric powered train; Brisbane to Cairns using a diesel powered train. These routes were partially upgraded in the 1990s at a cost of A$590 million, with the construction of 160 km (99 mi) of deviations to straighten curves.[79] Both with a service speed of 160 km/h (99 mph),[80] the electric tilt train set an Australian rail speed record of 210 km/h (130 mph) in 1999.[81]
In Victoria the State Government upgraded railway lines as part of the Regional Fast Rail project, with V/Line operating their VLocity diesel railcars at a maximum speed of 160 km/h (99 mph) over the lines.[82] In the early stages of the project the Victorian Government incorrectly referred to it as the 'Fast Train' or 'Very Fast Train', and this practice continues among some politicians and members of the public.[83][84][85]
^Das, Sushi (27 February 2004). "Off the rails". Melbourne: The Age. Retrieved 2 March 2009.
^Laird, P., Michell, M., & Adorni-Braccesi, G. (2002). Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne high speed train options, 25th Australasian Transport Research Forum 2–4 October, Canberra.; May, M. (2006). Aviation meets ecology--redesigning policy and practice for air transport and tourism. Transport Engineering in Australia, 10, 117-128.; Brunello, Lara R. and Bunker, Jonathan M. and Ferreira, Luis (2006) Investigation to Enhance Sustainable Improvements in High Speed Rail Transportation. In: CAITR, 6,7,8 December 2006, Sydney; Journal of Transport Geography, Volume 14, Issue 6, November 2006, Pages 437-450; Brunello, Lara R. and Bunker, Jonathan M. and Ferreira, Luis and Ferrara, Renzo (2008) Enhancing Sustainable Road and Rail Interaction. In: Transport Research Arena Europe 2008: Greener, Safer and Smarter Road Transport for Europe, 21–24 April 2008, Ljubljana, Slovenia; A Fast Railway for the East Coast, Railway Digest magazine, August 2007 edition; Fast Future or a Slow Death, Railway Digest magazine, September 2007 edition; Fast Freight and Passengers, Railway Digest magazine, October 2007 edition; Mixing Fast Freight and Passenger Trains, Railway Digest magazine, November 2007 edition; Costing a 21st Century Railway, Railway Digest magazine, December 2007 edition; Fast Trains – Profit or Loss, Railway Digest magazine, January 2008 edition; Fast Trains – Financially Viable, Railway Digest magazine, February 2008 edition; Fast Trains – External Benefits, Railway Digest magazine, March 2008 edition
^ abcdefPhilip Laird (2001). Where Are We Now: National Patterns and Trends in Transport. UNSW Press. p. pages 32–33. ISBN0 86840 411 X. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); |work= ignored (help)
^Arup and TMG, s9.pp51 - NOTE: The figures given in this source relate to the southbound route only - the northbound route is assumed to be a mirror image, hence figures are doubled for total ridership.
^Philip Laird (2001). Where Are We Now: National Patterns and Trends in Transport. UNSW Press. p. page 31. ISBN0 86840 411 X. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); |work= ignored (help)
^David Bromage. "X2000 in Australia". www.railpage.org.au. Retrieved 13 August 2008.
^Philip Laird (2001). Appendix B: Australia's Gauge Muddle and Prospects. UNSW Press. p. page 191. ISBN0 86840 411 X. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); |work= ignored (help)
Wild, J. P. Brotchie, J. F. and Nicholson, A. J. A Proposal for a Fast Railway Between Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne: An Exploratory Study. CSIRO, Canberra, May 1984.
