Half arsed measures abound. The Don Railway was excluded from the network using the insurance chesnut. What does it really mean, is it that the operator cannot afford to maintain the track to passenger standard.

Until tasmania grips the nettle and connects the dots with rail it will continue to miss opportunioties. Oppportunities culturally, opportunities educationally and opportunities in business and industry.

Who doesn’t enjoy a steam train ride, isn’t it cheaper all costs considered to allow people to travel to nodes of cultural activity, learning and business in a more sustainable way.

Yes it’s a big investment, jobs in upgrading the way and restoring the network, jobs in maintaining the rolling stock. 

At the moment we have time but as energy becomes more constrained supply and costs as well as pollution isues the imperative to act is likely to lead to a hasty half done job.

More than a light rail for one city’s downtown is needed if tasmania is to be ready for the future.

Should we close more schools, Police Stations and welfare services or should we enlarge the state debt and pass the burden onto our children? I am caught between needs, a fun ride on an empty train or demolish a school or two…ummm.

One does not ever wish to diss “a student living in Hobart” in case one puts a kybosh on youthful enthusiasm and vision, but once again, inescapably and ineluctably, Mr Sharp’s good idea gets derailed on these sets of points: who will pay their own money to ride this train? Or which businesses would pay their own money for their employees to ride this train?

If Mr Sharp’s train cannot get a reasonable return on operating and maintenance costs (after allowing start-up costs* some public subsidy), then it will be either a dud, or worse, an opportunity-cost~ drain on the public purse, as Comment 2 points out.

As always, think “mass transit”: is there a “mass” of riders or commuters needing regular & frequent “transit” on this piece of transport infrastructure?

* These costs would be stratospheric, because the Launceston-Hobart main line uses late-19th century engineering & alignment barely capable of taking mid-20th century rolling stock (as frequent derailments show). Anything aiming at semi-TGV standards^ would need, for starters, a new, electrified, straightened, passenger-dedicated and totally isolated permanent way (no hoons playing chicken on level crossings). And I’m not sure whether our Cape gauge can take semi-TGV trains; perhaps ask QR.

^ Any mainline train below this standard, i.e., unable to do the one-way non-stop CBD-to-CBD 200km trip in about an hour, would be a dud: the time saved, time during which commuters would be able to do other important stuff, plus there being no need to park for the day, would need to offset the loss of working time work during the two-hour drive, plus the loss of easily getting around locally by being carless, or the additional costs of local taxis, and most importantly, the loss of flexibility & control over departure & return times.

~ Cuddly critters are well down the priorities list.

And a false dichotomy riding high at #2! Nice work there Greg to slip in that pish so quickly.

Hi Mathew, I think you would need to rename your proposed railway as FTTAHNMFHBCO Railway.

That’s Forestry Tasmania; Ta Anna; Hawthorn; North Melbourne: Federal Hotels; Bellerive Cricket Oval Railway. Or at least have some of the trains named after those entities, and/or politicians.

Or call it a highway, and just slip the tracks down quietly some dark night once thr tarmacs down.

One of those ways might just get it taken to Infrastructure Australia for assessment, and to(probably) outgoing Gillard Labor, or to the (probably) inbound Abbott government.

There’s no intended glee in my comments - just what I know is the harsh reality.

But I wish you all the best with your efforts.

Peter Mackenzie
TVT Transport Development and Road Safety Research (non-profit)

Matthew, do a feasibility study and a cost benefit analysis.  While presenting a public transport service, it needs to be almost cost neutral given Tasmania’s chronic cash shortage. 

A transport service like rail has massive capital costs, and poor userpay revenue.  If this service was to use the existing Derwent Valley Rail line, what capital upgrade for extensions, gauge changes, intersection safety would be required?

What patronage volume per day at what average ticket price would be required to achieve payback?

Would any conversion from coach tourism volumes be likely?  How so?

What would be the shortfall operating outlay to be funded by a broke Treasury?

The risk is a Sydney MonoRail cash black hole, which Tasmania can least afford, despite the niceties of Copenhagen amenity such a light rail might offer.

The light rail would need to replace buses/motor vehicles for its chosen route, which means that it needs to be a door-to-door service, not a linehaul service.

You should start by analysing the service standards and financial performance of Tas Rail.  I probably has its own reviews and reports.

Consider the line between Hobart and Launceston.  Why is a passenger service not viable when it parallels the busiest highway in Tasmania?

Hello everyone, thank you for your feedback.

It’s good to put everything into perspective, and whilst there would be things to gain and things to lose from any idea like this, I feel a little concious debate is always needed.

The government seems to not worry about such an investment, and yes, there is issues regarding the practicality of such an idea and I acknowledge that it would be hard to gain patronage and capital investment, but I still feel it pays to think outside the box. Hence why I’ve shared my thoughts, not that I imagine them to get anywhere.

I think the title of this might be a little misleading in that it doesn’t have to be a “government-financed” railway, and private investment is perhaps the only way such an idea could get off of the ground. That’s my personal opinion though, but any government support in anything is helpful.

Still, underlying elements like heritage trains are viable options, and I still think a trial could be held.

I will just reiterate, this is an idea, and I’m not an expert on the subject of railways but as a young person, I know many people who are leaving this state because of its “lack of” impression; and the lack of public transport options is a definite concern to many 15-25 year olds.

But again, thank you for your feedback. It’s always good to understand what other people think.

Mathew Sharp.

A passenger train service between Launceston and Burnie would be hugely profitable-it’s amazing it hasn’t been done before this.

Matthew,

Look up the definition of ‘investment’, but if that still confuses you, consider artwork at MONA so you can think “outside the square” without causing risk to society.

Your blind idealism would suit you to join the Greens.

Nice idea Mathew, but having another bureaucratic run government enterprise and its accompanying empty headed and expensive elitist board, would do more to destroy any future railway network than doing nothing.

Rail in Tasmania needs a coordinated plan which would end up linking all railways and expanding them to cover and finally circumnavigate the state. Only in this way would they become viable, adding a tourist experience and freighting service which would reduce costs dramatically. It would also reduce damage to roads and truck accidents, decreasing road repair costs. Especially on the midlands highway.

To do this it would have to be electric with recharging at every stop, or seed oil powered diesel/electric. To allay complaints from local transport firms, it would be easy to give them access to the line with their own freight carriages so they wouldn’t lose business, but would also lower their costs by not having to travel long distances. Add bicycle tracks along side all main tourist roads, with electric bike hire at every station and you’d open up another avenue for tourism and local business.

Any railway should be run by knowledgeable people, not bureaucrats and boards overflowing with political hacks and vested interest elitists empty heads. The best people in this state to run the ABT and all tourism railways is “Rail Tasmanian”, the Tasmanian rail society. They are the people with the nohow and real experience.

#8 TGC, how do you justify Burnie-Hobart-Hobart rail making a profit?  Tea leaves?

Here is my bit of doom and gloom; It will not be that long before peak oil really kicks in and the ONLY way you will be able to travel around is on a railway.
Just please, please , do not put FT or any other bunch of so called government corporations or what ever they are called, in to run it. Especially the mob that are running the TT line.

Comment 12 has prompted this suggestion to “solve” the “problem” of over-population: what say that, seeing that “will not be that long before peak oil really kicks in”, all true believers in “peak oil” hold their breath until that moment, or until they expire, whichever comes first.

Greater love hath no peak-oilist . . .

13 Leonard Colquhoun; We will see who is right and for me it can’t come too soon.
It is the only way that we will be able to “control’ global warming.
denial, that big river in Egypt.

#13, Leonard, peak oil doesn’t relate to just resource status, but also to supply and demand. As consumption is doubling every couple of years, it’s logical to see there will be a peak in ability to supply. That scenario is very close and not just because of the increase of vehicles, but the increase in the consumption of plastics and associated products derived from fossil oil. This will increase prices to the point where many will not be able to afford to buy fuel and fossil oil orientated products will become beyond the reach of many.

The main response to Comments 13 and 14 is this: most of those who trumpet “Peak Oil!!!!!” as if that is some sort of definitive end fail to appreciate how magnificently inventive we have been, and still are, in developing new ways and technologies of doing things. We don’t just lie down and wait for death while thinking of a new paradigm.

Many of these dull Jeremiahs are in the PC-addled shadows of what we once honoured with the titles of The Arts / The Humanities, or in their cheer squads in the mono-mindset commentariat, and as such they have no experience in doing much for themselves, let alone being pragmatically inventive and creative.

Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_historic_inventions#20th_century

The Peak Oil argument has merit, yet is not doing anything to stop the ‘Still Heaps of Coal’ problem.

Peak Spin is a more serious issue bombarding electors.  TT needs a better filter.

“The Peak Oil argument” (Comment 17) usually means, for various understandable reasons, “the Peak Oil-as-extracted by late-20th-century-technomogy argument”.

In kind, it is not all that different from a Peak-Whale-Oil shock! horror! doom & destruction / end-of-the-world / Chicken Little argument in the late 19th century, minus today’s trendily morbid celeb-endorsed pessimism.

try this, Leonard.
You won’t like it, but it might clear what ails you.

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com.au/