Opinion: Aviation ignores high-speed rail at its peril

Transport Minister Catherine King has been all over the airwaves spruiking the plan, saying the government hopes to break ground on the mammoth undertaking by the end of the decade, and that stage 1 will connect Newcastle through to Western Sydney International in less than 90 minutes – which is also an eye-popping figure, compared to the current two hours and 40 minutes by car, or roughly two and a half by existing trains just to Sydney’s Central Station.

So, assuming we are eventually able to hop on a fast train from Newcastle to Sydney – or even from Brisbane to Melbourne, as is the ultimate plan for the eastern seaboard – the question is this: will high-speed rail be a threat to aviation, or an opportunity? Certainly for airports, it would appear to be the latter: international gateways like Frankfurt, Paris-Charles de Gaulle, and Copenhagen all saw larger catchment areas, more rail passengers, and the ability to offer more lucrative services to replace long-haul flights following their high-speed rail hook-ups, according to the business case. Indeed, its authors say high-speed rail would “enhance connectivity to airports across the nation, both increasing the attractiveness of regions to overseas visitors as well as improving the mobility of people in the regions”.

“Research indicates that a high speed rail stop at Western Sydney International could add 2.3 to 2.8 million incremental passenger trips to the airport by 2039, with this number expected to grow significantly in the following decades,” the report read.

“A fast, frequent and reliable rail connection to Western Sydney International would mitigate the risk of losing aviation traffic to interstate or international markets due to poor connectivity with key destinations like the Sydney CBD. It would enhance the airport’s strategic appeal for airlines and provide opportunities to balance aviation capacity within Greater Sydney, aligning with global best practices.”

So much for airports, then, but what about airlines? The Sydney–Melbourne route, which the government is eyeing as a prime candidate for future high-speed rail expansion, is one of the busiest in the world, with 9 million air passengers in 2025, putting it in sixth place globally, according to OAG data. Currently, a normal train between Sydney and Melbourne will take you roughly 11 hours, making it woefully slow compared to the 90-minute journey by air – but if a future fast train can get you from Sydney Central to Melbourne Southern Cross within around four hours, might that have the domestic carriers sweating?

To try to answer that, let’s look abroad to another market that has rapidly expanded high-speed rail over the past couple of decades: China. Research published last year by analyst Scott Zhao of Cirium shows that China’s massive high-speed rail network is muscling out short-haul flights of under 800km (into which niche Sydney-Melbourne certainly fits), as it’s often more convenient, more reliable, and faster than travelling by air, even when the flight time would be shorter.

Why? Because high-speed rail stations are usually centrally located (again, think Sydney Central and Melbourne Southern Cross), saving travel time to the gate or platform itself, security screening is more efficient, with shorter queues and less involved processes.

So, faced with plateauing demand for short-haul flights, how have Chinese domestic airlines responded? According to Zhao, by “reallocating capacity toward medium- and long-haul segments, where air travel retains a competitive edge”.

“Rather than eliminating demand for air travel, HSR appears to be reshaping it,” he wrote. “The data suggests that airlines may be gradually shifting their focus away from saturated short-haul routes – particularly in regions where HSR provides strong competition – and toward longer domestic flights, international services, and markets where high-speed rail coverage remains limited. These may include parts of western China, smaller cities, or corridors requiring multi-stop connectivity.”

Zhao’s analysis is clear: while high-speed rail certainly competes with aviation (which would likely thrill passengers, if it means lower fares), it also enables more efficient transport in general – and can even offer opportunities, if airlines adjust to the new reality.

“The future of mobility in China may not be rail versus air, but rail and air functioning in a more integrated ecosystem,” he wrote. “HSR delivers strong regional and intercity access, while aviation continues to lead in long-haul and international connectivity. Together, these modes have the potential to support a more balanced, sustainable, and passenger-oriented transportation system.

“By exploring multimodal integration through coordinated scheduling, ticketing, and infrastructure planning, China may be developing a model that reduces redundancy, enhances connectivity, and improves system resilience.”

Whether or not you think this latest push by the government will see a single kilometre of track laid, it’s clear that the high-speed rail issue in Australia won’t go away forever – and if it wants to seize the moment, aviation had best start planning for if and when it does come to pass.