# Queensland High-Speed Line (Tilting Trains), Australia



## DET63 (Aug 4, 2009)

Has anyone ridden on this service? It's 1067 mm (3 ft 6 in) gauge, powered by 25 kV electrical service (I would assume AC 50 Hz, but the source doesn't say), with trains capable of operating at up to 160 km/h (100 mph). The whole trip is 1,681 km (1,045 miles). I believe there are a number of intermediate stops.

Click here for a description.


----------



## jis (Aug 4, 2009)

DET63 said:


> Has anyone ridden on this service? It's 1067 mm (3 ft 6 in) gauge, powered by 25 kV electrical service (I would assume AC 50 Hz, but the source doesn't say), with trains capable of operating at up to 160 km/h (100 mph). The whole trip is 1,681 km (1,045 miles). I believe there are a number of intermediate stops.
> Click here for a description.


Yes. Right, Imperial Gauge, 50Hz. Haven't ridden the whole distance to Cairns but only Brisbane - Gympie North just to ride that train and then return by a regular train. Very nice service. Though note that the Tilt Train I was on was diesel. The line is electrified though, at least upto Rockhampton and perhaps further now. I returned to Brisbane by an electric commuter train.

Since then they even managed to derail one by trying to negotiate a curve at too high a speed by mistake too. They also had a service cancellation this April after a grade crossing accident.

You can look up info at Queensland Railway Train Services.


----------



## jackal (Aug 4, 2009)

I _almost_ rode one. I was ticketed from Proserpine (near Airlie Beach, base for the scenic Whitsunday Islands) to Cairns on one, but my traveling companion opted to change our trip to leave earlier, and since it only runs thrice weekly (IIRC), we ended up back on the regular Sunlander train.

Indeed, the one that goes all the way to Cairns is diesel-powered. The electric one only goes to Rockhampton.


----------



## DET63 (Aug 5, 2009)

"Thrice weekly": who uses the word _thrice_ other than John F. Kerry?

Seriously, though, what's the point of a high-speed service that doesn't run at least thrice_ daily_? At the very least, it should run on a once- or twice-daily basis. If people are in a hurry to get somewhere and willing to take a high-speed train (although this doesn't appear to be a high-speed railway, even compared to Acela), are they going to be willing to wait a day or two to take the trip? Is there a combination of services that in fact provides daily connections along the line, even if the tilting trains don't run every day?


----------



## jackal (Aug 6, 2009)

DET63 said:


> "Thrice weekly": who uses the word _thrice_ other than John F. Kerry?
> Seriously, though, what's the point of a high-speed service that doesn't run at least thrice_ daily_? At the very least, it should run on a once- or twice-daily basis. If people are in a hurry to get somewhere and willing to take a high-speed train (although this doesn't appear to be a high-speed railway, even compared to Acela), are they going to be willing to wait a day or two to take the trip? Is there a combination of services that in fact provides daily connections along the line, even if the tilting trains don't run every day?


Yes. The Sunlander runs (IIRC) every day, meaning that on the days the _Tilt Train _(yes, that is its official name!) runs, there is service multiple times daily along the route (up to three times per day, I believe, south of Rockhampton, whose route the electric Tilt Train serves).

Route and schedule details are available here:

http://www.traveltrain.com.au/Home.aspx

I used "thrice" because it fits: Aussies, like Brits, have a quaint vocabulary.  They say funny things like "whilst" and "spot of tea."  You do have to admit, though, that "thrice" is easier to say than "three times." Of course, "whilst" is harder--an extra two consonants that don't lend themselves nicely to linking: try saying "whilst leaving" versus "while leaving." One is "walls tleaving" (with an awkward pause between the s and t) whereas the other is "wulleaving." Much smoother!  (Unless you're from the South, in which case it's "Hwaal layving"...  )

(And I'm not sure it runs thrice weekly, anyway--looks like [at least the north-of-Rockhampton service] is only twice weekly. Or should I say two times weekly?  )


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 6, 2009)

DET63 said:


> "Thrice weekly": who uses the word _thrice_ other than John F. Kerry?


I use it sometimes. Believe it or not there are people out there that really respect and like the English language and enjoy using their command of it to the fullest. I'm one of them, and I'm pretty stubborn about it:

Imply and infer are NOT interchangeable.

Unprecedented does NOT mean unique.

And most importantly, "contact" is not now and will never be a verb.


----------



## jis (Aug 6, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> And most importantly, "contact" is not now and will never be a verb.


Surely you jest?  ?

The Oxford English Dictionary says:



> *contact*• *noun* /*kon*takt/ *1* the state or condition of physical touching. *2* before another noun caused by or operating through physical touch: _contact dermatitis_. *3* the state or condition of communicating or meeting. *4* a meeting or communication set up with someone. *5* a person who may be asked for information or assistance. *6* a person who has associated with a patient with a contagious disease. *7* a connection for the passage of an electric current from one thing to another.
> 
> • *verb* /*kon*takt, kn*takt*/ get in touch or communication with.
> 
> ...


And Websters agrees with Oxford:



> *Contact**Noun*
> 
> *1.* Close interaction: "they kept in daily contact"; "they claimed that they had been in contact with extraterrestrial beings".
> 
> ...


----------



## DET63 (Aug 6, 2009)

I would say_ tri-weekly_ rather than _thrice-weekly._ Once you get to four times a week, though, you have to say, "Four times a week."

_Comprise_ and _composed of_ mean almost the same thing, yet many use _comprise_ passively: "The train was comprised of two locomotives, three sleeping cars, a diner, a lounge, and three coaches," should be "The train was composed of . . ." or (probably better) "The train comprised . . ."


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 6, 2009)

jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > And most importantly, "contact" is not now and will never be a verb.
> ...


Not at all. Both versions that you quoted are dictionaries containing the more recent, corrupted versions of the English language. "Contact" has only recently been accepted by people as a verb- and I don't accept it. Every time we compromise the meaning of a word by utilizing it improperly, our ability to communicate as a people goes down. I, for one, refuse to tolerate it.

No, losing one word here, another there isn't a big deal in and of itself. But over time, over the course of centuries, our abilities to communicate have been highly degraded. Latin and Hebrew have something in common: they have both been dead for a thousand years. I speak Hebrew fluently- and know Latin fairly well- and am often extraordinarily frustrated at my inability to communicate what I have to say without writing a paragraph that, inevitably, nobody will read. Especially when I could do it in Hebrew with, perhaps, a single word or a single sentence.


----------



## AAARGH! (Aug 6, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Languages evolve. They always have and always will. Who's to say whether it is for the better or worse. I know if I were to listening to 17th century English (perhaps spoken by William Shakespeare), I would not understand most of it. It was not the same English.

I disagree that old is necessarily better. Refusing to use a 'new' word (or use it in a new and common way) just leaves you behind the times for no good reason.

Hebrew is not dead (Latin is, but not for 100 years). How about Israel? I assume you know that though.


----------



## p&sr (Aug 6, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I... am often extraordinarily frustrated at my inability to communicate what I have to say without writing a paragraph that, inevitably, nobody will read. Especially when I could do it in Hebrew with, perhaps, a single word or a single sentence.


Then save yourself the trouble, and just write it in Hebrew! At the very worst, nobody will read it... which leaves you none the worse off.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 6, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


This is great for Israel or Ancient Rome but doesnt quite apply in this rapidly merging one world existance!)Esperonza anyone? :lol:


----------



## jis (Aug 6, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Not at all. Both versions that you quoted are dictionaries containing the more recent, corrupted versions of the English language. "Contact" has only recently been accepted by people as a verb- and I don't accept it. Every time we compromise the meaning of a word by utilizing it improperly, our ability to communicate as a people goes down. I, for one, refuse to tolerate it.


Ah OK. So what is your exact preferred cutoff date beyond which you do not expect any evolution in the language that you speak. I.e, what would be the precise date before which English was uncorrupted according to you? While you are at it also mention which is the precise date after which English arrived at the state that you consider uncorrupted? Just so that we know the limits within which we need to operate to satisfy your whims, should one happen to care.  Thanks. :lol:


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 6, 2009)

AAARGH! said:


> Languages evolve. They always have and always will. Who's to say whether it is for the better or worse. I know if I were to listening to 17th century English (perhaps spoken by William Shakespeare), I would not understand most of it. It was not the same English.
> I disagree that old is necessarily better. Refusing to use a 'new' word (or use it in a new and common way) just leaves you behind the times for no good reason.
> 
> Hebrew is not dead (Latin is, but not for 100 years). How about Israel? I assume you know that though.


Using a new word is not something I object to. Using a current word in a new way dilutes its meaning. I want to be able to impart all the information I can such that someone who shares my command of english can understand what I have to say with both accuracy and precision.



jimhudson said:


> This is great for Israel or Ancient Rome but doesnt quite apply in this rapidly merging one world existance!)Esperonza anyone? :lol:


Perhaps I disagree with the merging of the world into one entity. Perhaps I wish to do what I can, peacefully and passively, to prevent it, or at least not further its cause.



jis said:


> Ah OK. So what is your exact preferred cutoff date beyond which you do not expect any evolution in the language that you speak. I.e, what would be the precise date before which English was uncorrupted according to you? While you are at it also mention which is the precise date after which English arrived at the state that you consider uncorrupted? Just so that we know the limits within which we need to operate to satisfy your whims, should one happen to care.  Thanks. :lol:


You are an ass- and I mean that affectionately.

Hebrew has been alive, to some extent, for the past 100 years or so. It was revived with the Zionist movement. It was dead for a long long time. Even back in Europe, Jews didn't speak Hebrew- they spoke Yiddish, their native language, or both. Most also understood Hebrew. Latin has been dead for a good thousand years in my estimation. It morphed into Italian, French, Spanish, etc by a thousand years ago, surely. Using a language to recite prayer and it being alive are not the same.

Being Israeli, I know it is now a living language once again, yes. Perhaps my ESL status gives me a greater respect for English then most? Not that I think I'm the only one on the board.

My experience is that language does NOT evolve. It DEvolves.


----------



## DET63 (Aug 11, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...





> — ORIGIN Latin contactus, from contingere ‘touch, border on’.


_Contact_ comes from a Latin verb. Actually, I would assume that _contactus_ is a participle, meaning a verb form used as an adjective. Since we don't use the original verb form anymore, taking the participle and using it as a verb is the next best thing. If you wish to use _get in touch with_ instead of _contact_, be my guest. But beware: you might be seen as "wordy."


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 12, 2009)

DET63 said:


> > — ORIGIN Latin contactus, from contingere ‘touch, border on’.
> 
> 
> _Contact_ comes from a Latin verb. Actually, I would assume that _contactus_ is a participle, meaning a verb form used as an adjective. Since we don't use the original verb form anymore, taking the participle and using it as a verb is the next best thing. If you wish to use _get in touch with_ instead of _contact_, be my guest. But beware: you might be seen as "wordy."


Actually, you're wrong on a basic level: the English word Contact is NOT from the latin verb. It is from the German noun, Kontakt. Which then, of course, goes way back further to Latin. But the fact that the word is more directly German than Latin is fairly obvious in its basic construction. Our using it as a verb is recent and dates to the early part of the last century.

As for me seeming wordy... This is a new concept?


----------



## DET63 (Aug 13, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > > — ORIGIN Latin contactus, from contingere ‘touch, border on’.
> ...


From The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology: contact sb. XVII. — L. contāctus, f. contāct-, pp. stem of contingere touch closely, border on, be CONTIGUOUS to, f. CON- + tangere touch.

No mention of the word coming through German there. The only Latin word that I can think of that came to English through German is _transvestite_.



> As for me seeming wordy... This is a new concept?


----------



## DET63 (Sep 9, 2009)

According to TravelOnline.com, the _Tilt Train_ leaves Brisbane every Monday and Friday at 6:25 pm. It leaves Gladstone every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 12:58 pm [sic; it may be that 12:58 am was meant, as the next stop listed is Mackay at 7:25 am the same day, and I don't think the _Tilt Train_ is capable of time travel]. After stops at Proserpine and Townsville, it arrives at Cairns 7:20 pm.

The return trip leaves Cairns every Sunday and Friday at 8:15 am, stopping at Townsville and Proserpine before arriving at Mackay at 8:25 pm. Then, every Monday, Thursday and Saturday, it leaves Gladstone at 2:48 am and arrives at 9:10 am.


----------

