I'm honestly impressed that someone who knows their shit as well as this guy clearly does did the analysis and presented quite a realisticly-achievable plan that managed to meet the completely aspirational goal I had of needing an average 200 km/h travel time for it to be viable for the average person.

26,000 people travelling this corridor every day makes this a complete no-brainer to build.

I don't really understand how he's arrived at his "plane time" in the comparison at the end. My own searching suggests he's added on some random amounts.

Route	Flight time (according to Google)	"Plane Time" (in the video)	Difference
MEL–SYD	85 mins	135 mins	50 mins
MEL–CBR	65 mins	120 mins	55 mins
SYD–CBR	55 mins	105 mins	50 mins

Personally, if I were doing the comparison, I would add a minimum of 1 hour to the plane time to account for the recommended 1 hour early arrival at the airport. Then I'd add on some amount extra to account for the fact that airports are typically less-centrally located than central train stations. Maybe use average public transport time from the centre of the CBD (where it takes you if you just put "Sydney" etc. into Google Maps) to the airport. You can do the same for the rail too if you like. That would improve how rail looks, especially on the Melbourne–Canberra route where it would become properly competitive.

I dunno the difference between "Metro to Metro" and "City to City" as he puts it. Plane time increases for some reason, but rail time doesn't.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Typically this channel includes the airport arrival wait already, which is where the fifty min difference comes from, and the city to city times is to account for time taken to get to and from the city center from the airport terminal.

[–] Zagorath 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So is Metro to Metro starting from arrival at the airport? Why the sometimes 50 minute, sometimes 55 minute add on, rather than the general 60 minute guideline?

And City to City does my suggestion of adding transportation to the airport?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, presumably because 50 minutes is about as close as an experienced passenger can cut it if you get on right as the doors close, which we are also assuming for the train, when he researched that specific flight the time presumably came out five minutes longer than you did, and yes.

[–] Longmactoppedup 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I would rather spend more time sitting on a train than I would navigating air ports with their security theatre.

Even 2h on a train vs 1h of air port and plane bullshit would be preferred.

[–] Zagorath 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You also get way more comfortable seats on a train. I'd rather be on a train for 2 hours than on a plane for 1 hour, even apart from the airport time. And the environmental benefits are pretty great too.

[–] DuckyMcDuckface 4 points 2 weeks ago

More leg space too

[–] No1 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

HA! We all know it's really just about who donates the most money and offers cushy post politics jobs.

[–] TinyBreak 1 points 2 weeks ago

How would you react if I said we were revisiting the very fast train proposal?