I find it interesting how often articles come out about how good projects like Brightline West are before they're built. There's still plenty of time for more delays, budget overruns and further compromises. The original Brightline in Florida was meant to be the first high speed rail in the US, but after enough delays and increasing budgets they compromised on its speed. The Brightline model is better than nothing, but I'd hardly call better than nothing a model for us to emulate.

Some problems are legitimate, but honestly even if the Australian government cancelled the project and restarted following many of these recommendations, it would be even further away from completion, as we would have to wait years again for new plans to be drafted, and it still won't be built immediately. In my mind, it is better to commit to a slightly flawed plan than to constantly restart because we think of a better way, as we have been doing for years, decades.

The reason we're looking at Sydney to Newcastle is that people complained Sydney to Canberra was too expensive/difficult when that was last proposed, and that Sydney to Newcastle is easier and shorter. Grass is always greener on the other side.

Out of all the countries to take high-speed rail inspiration from, I would hold off until that US line is actually operating.

Has anyone ever suggested engaging Chinese companies to help develop Aussie high speed rail. Seems like an obvious option.

I understand there'd be some dog whistling around it but surely there's no actual sovereign threat if we develop local maintenance capacity.

Australia should take example from countries having high-speed railways. Being Japan, China, or any Europaen countries. (gues, I'm in Europe ;) ) The US is a bad example. Sure you have large distance as in the US, but expertise is not there. There is only one highspeed line between Boston and New York city, if I'm correct).

High speed train need its own track, it's too fast at 300+ kmh, it needs protections from and for wild life around it, an onboard signaling system. All you don't need below 200kmh.

Contrary to the article, when a highspeed train uses normal tracks, it has to go slow (200kmh max), and use visual signals. It becomes a classic train. So there are expenses to be made building tracks for highspeed trains. It's not cheap.

Privatizing rails, taking examples from the UK and Paris - Bordeaux in France is a baaaaaaaad move. I think the UK rebought its first rail company. Paris - Bordeaux highspeed track is private and the french national operator SNCF must run its trains, even empty, to use it per contract. And seat prices are quite high compared to other (public) lines in France.

However as I see here in Switzerland, privatizaton can happen if well done. Switzerland has about 100 private rail, boat and coaches companies across the country... for 8 millions people, and one ticket and one timetable for everything. This is very centralized around the main train operator (which is a private company, 80% owned by the confederation).

Sure, privatize the railroads. That going well is the norm, not the exception. /s

I probably wouldn't base anything off US high-speed rail based on the progress in California

Go the Silver Emu!

I think a high speed train between Alice Springs and Mount Isa is the most logical place to start.