The old SEx/MEx sleeper service was better than the XPT ever was. You had the full deluxe cabins if you wanted it with families, a proper dining car, and the slower travel time actually made more sense for overnight.

The problem with the XPT is that it's always been a weird middle ground. It's not a high speed train or anything close, it's just a bit faster, and the road these days is in a state where it's a reasonably ok one day drive if you've reason not to fly.

[–] Tau@aussie.zone 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The train itself isn't really the slow part for the XPT, it's supposed to be able to run up to 160km/h. Knowing that only made it more annoying though when sitting in one chugging along at ~80k (or even slower when hot) up and down the north coast line - like most of our lines that track just wasn't good enough for it to go faster.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Also, the Melbourne-Sydney and Sydney-Brisbane lines are slow. They were built for feeble Victorian-era steam traction, and wind around hills to avoid gradients. Straighten some of the curves out, and you’d shave a few hours off the journey.

Not enough to justify scrapping sleeper trains, though: it’d still take a good 8+ hours to do Melbourne-Sydney. Though a hypothetical high-speed rail line could do the journey in 3 hours, and while it would take several generations to realistically build one in Australia, one could incrementally upgrade the existing lines, picking off the low-hanging fruit of slow curves and then replacing entire segments with high-speed ones and running classic-compatible trains along the network.

[–] bouriquet@mastodon.social 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

@AllNewTypeFace @Tau A similar problem with US northeast corridor rail: old track design, curves, lack of funding or availability of right of way to build modern infrastructure with gentle curves supporting higher speeds. Geography combined with buildings and 100 year old development that can’t be easily changed.

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

nah, if it was on the agenda ot would happen. the US doesn't have any problem displacing poor people and spending trillions. this type of project would hurt auto and air travel too much to be really considered

[–] bouriquet@mastodon.social 1 points 11 months ago

@lntl Considering how big corporations (including airlines) lobby in Washington…true. Amtrak can’t get any adequate funding, compare that to the FAA budget that provides air traffic control services in the US (as shaky as that is even).

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 1 points 11 months ago

Australia has it easier, as most of the land is rural or undeveloped. But then again, it’s Australia, a country where the unofficial national motto is “she’ll be right mate”. We don’t really do long-term planning there.