Well, aside from any dramas with the financing history of this Sydney-Melbourne link, the distance is not the most favorable. People (those who would pay / support such a service when it comes down to it) will generally choose rail versus air based on the time city center to city center.
Sydney-Melbourne is 900 km. This is beyond the outer edge of where rail versus air is highly competitive. By several hours.
Paris-London (500km) is about break even for the air/rail time tradeoff, and there rail takes about 50% share. Barcelona-Madrid is a bit further (600km), and has done really well also although that's a bit of a special case.
San Francisco-Los Angeles is 600km and you can see how poorly that project is going -- which by the way is what this Australian project has the similar feeling of.
So by the time you get to Sydney-Melbourne, you're talking 900 km and > 3 hours difference between the air/rail options and really not favored. Maybe Canberra in the middle helps a little, but the volume of traffic of people choosing this option is just not there.
Sydney-Melbourne is 900 km. This is beyond the outer edge of where rail versus air is highly competitive. By several hours.
Paris-London (500km) is about break even for the air/rail time tradeoff, and there rail takes about 50% share. Barcelona-Madrid is a bit further (600km), and has done really well also although that's a bit of a special case.
San Francisco-Los Angeles is 600km and you can see how poorly that project is going -- which by the way is what this Australian project has the similar feeling of.
So by the time you get to Sydney-Melbourne, you're talking 900 km and > 3 hours difference between the air/rail options and really not favored. Maybe Canberra in the middle helps a little, but the volume of traffic of people choosing this option is just not there.