Article: INLAND RAIL A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE

[ozbob]

Posted on behalf of mufreight.  This article has just been published in the Railway Digest.

INLAND RAIL A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE

Historically there has been and there continues to be a disproportionate investment in road transport infrastructure in proportion to rail infrastructure when considered in relation to the freight task carried out which continues to  further disadvantage rail.

The parochial attitude of the states has further militated against the efficient utilisation of rail infrastructure for freight haulage.  Being state owned they have directed freight flows to and from points within that state rather than interstate regardless of the length of the line haul and until more recent times the rail infrastructure has reflected this.

This state-based orientation of rail and break of gauge, gave road transport an advantage particularly in cross border traffic to the nearest port or major centre, an advantage that has increased with the high levels of investment in road funding.  The privatisation of rail operation in recent times has seen a rethink of operational direction.  It is unfortunate that existing rail infrastructure is in many cases not conducive to these operations, having been created with a state oriented perspective. These centralised rail systems focused freight traffic on a major port or centre within that state rather than to the nearest port in another state (Mt Gambier South Australia to Portland in Victoria being an example) with little consideration for either regional based or interstate traffic.

With the extension of the standard gauge network the impediment of break of gauge has lessened.  The formation of National Rail and introduction of third party access, which enabled private operators to who actively, sought business either in competition or in conjunction with road to enter the market saw increased national use of rail infrastructure.

While in many cases this meant that freight simply changed from one rail operator to another, rail also gained some freight from road due to improved operating efficiency reflected in lower cost and improved transit times as traffic levels on the east west corridor have shown, unfortunately the existing inadequate infrastructure continues to inhibit rail realizing its potential share of the land transport task and thus reducing the demands on the road infrastructure.

An example of this is the proposed Inland Rail link which as originally proposed was one of the most innovative rail infrastructure concepts conceived in this country for many years.

Unfortunately however at that time it was not considered to be a commercially viable proposition and it was argued that the construction of the alternative to Alice Springs to Darwin line made the proposal redundant.

The original proposal was then compromised by attempts to make it more attractive by rerouting the projected line via Toowoomba and Gladstone. These compromises lengthened the route making it uncompetitive against road freight for traffic from the southern states to Darwin.

The real potential for the inland line has seemingly been overlooked. The greatest potential for this line is to maximize the use of the infrastructure to the cost-effective advantage of both road and rail.  The proposal to route the line via Toowoomba fails because of this compromise by failing to recognise that a railway by its very nature can not be everything to everyone and the proposed routing via Toowoomba disadvantages rail in competition against road and quite effectively renders the proposal impractical.

The proposal by the ATEC group is that the standard gauge line be extended from North Star into Queensland to join the QR Dirranbandi line east of Goondiwindi at Carrington and then that line be dual gauged to Inglewood, with a new line be built from Inglewood to Milmerran then following the existing QR alignment to Toowoomba which would be rebuilt either to standard gauge or as a dual gauge line.  Further construction to Brisbane would then wait until QR realigns and rebuilds the narrow gauge line from Brisbane to Toowoomba.  Overall this proposal achieves little.  Through traffic to and from Brisbane would be forced to transship at Toowoomba to either road or to QR narrow gauge for forwarding on to Brisbane. 

The existing restricted clearances on the QR line between Toowoomba and Brisbane would effectively restrict some container loading in the interim period thus forcing the majority of any freight routed via the inland route terminating at Toowoomba on to an already overstressed road system.  The capacity of QR to rail this potential loading from Toowoomba to Brisbane would be limited by the number of available train paths over this section and the presently restricted clearances, at the present time grain traffic is being restricted by the need to provide paths for export coal traffic.

The proposed routing of the line to Brisbane via Toowoomba would be some sixty five kilometres longer than a line via Warwick and Tamrookum, and would require the construction of 92km more infrastructure.  The line from Tamrookum to Acacia Ridge, which is part of the existing standard gauge interstate network, is to acceptable standards at present and could readily be upgraded for higher axle loads and the vertical clearances needed to enable the transit of double stacked containers at a minimum cost.

The operation of double stacked containers over a dual gauge line between Toowoomba and Brisbane would preclude any eventual electrification the western line beyond Rosewood to Toowoomba for passenger traffic and due to current levels of traffic on this section on the route it would not be practical for QR to reduce the existing double track to a single track of each gauge rather than dual gauge both tracks.

As proposed a new line would be required between Rosewood and Kagaru to gain access to the standard gauge line to Acacia Ridge and the Port of Brisbane.  An unnecessarily expensive proposition when the cost of resumption's for an alignment through an increasingly urbanised area is considered.

As proposed the route via Toowoomba will require the construction of 153km of new standard gauge line, the reconstruction of a further 277km of existing narrow gauge line for an overall line length of 440km from North Star to Acacia Ridge.  Some 70km of the line between Toowoomba and Rosewood is double track which adds a further 70 km of infrastructure to be rebuilt making 510km in all.

There is an alternative to route the line via Warwick which would require no resumption's in the developed urban area between Rosewood and Kagaru, would be some 65km shorter and only require the construction of 136km of new line and reconstruction of 202km of existing narrow gauge line for an overall length of 386km.

There can be considerable savings made by routing the line via Warwick rather than via Toowoomba, these savings come from the lower cost of constructing the shorter length of infrastructure, reduced maintenance costs, lower operating costs and the shorter transit times which will help make rail more competitive with road. 

The section of line between Thane (some 40km west of Warwick) and the existing standard gauge line at Tamrookum would be a green field construction and as such it could be constructed to the optimum alignment, clearances and track standards allowing for fast (160kph inter-modal operation) and container double stacking and it would be less costly to construct by not having to be constructed under traffic conditions and by being both shorter and built to optimum standards of alignment and grade even more economical to operate making the line even more competitive with road both in transit times and cost.

For traffic from the west, (Adelaide, Whyalla and Perth) which is presently routed through Goobang Junction, Cootamundra and Sydney to Acacia Ridge would if routed via Moree and Warwick see the distance shortened by 438km and a minimum time saving of some 5 hours, the actual savings in transit time would be considerably greater as the inland route has better alignment and grades which would mean further savings in time of possibly a further three hours over the present coastal route.

For traffic between Melbourne and Acacia Ridge the difference in distance is marginal, only 61km shorter, but transit time savings of better than three hours are possible over the present route via Sydney and the coastal route and that makes no allowance for delays as a consequence of the curfew on freight movements through the Sydney metropolitan area.  The easier grades of the inland route would mean considerable fuel savings lowering operating costs and reduced emissions of greenhouse gasses.

At the present time there is better than 6000 tonnes of freight railed to Acacia Ridge daily that would move to the inland route, this is almost double the projected freight loadings that were used to justify the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin rail link.  It is anticipated that the Inland rail link once in operation would see more than 10% of the freight presently hauled by road between Melbourne and Brisbane diverted to rail in the first year of operation.

At the present time trains operating between Goobang Junction and the Queensland New South Wales border over the existing lines would have to reverse direction at Werris Creek as there are no facilities at Gap where the lines from Binnaway and Narrabri junction.

Once in operation the route could be further shortened in New South Wales and transit times lowered further by the construction of a new line of some 180km linking Narrabri to the Dubbo - Coonamble line in the vicinity of Gilgandra, this connecting link would more than halve the distance between Narrabri and Dubbo and could be built to an alignment that would provide clearances of 7.1 Metres for double stacking and the operation of 30 tonne axle loads at 100kph and intermodal freight at speeds of 160kph further reducing transit times and costs.

Further improvements in transit times and operating efficiency for the line would be achieved by realigning and upgrading the line between Dubbo and Goobang Junction to the same standards.

Some of the advantages that would be gained by the construction of the inland rail link are, freight currently on road would be moved to rail, a single 3500 tonne train takes some 150 plus B Doubles off the highways, in itself a quite considerable cost saving that would increase as the cost of fuel increases.  This link would effectively reduce transport costs and greenhouse emissions by diverting freight from road to rail.

As a comparison a train of 3500 tonnes over the existing route from Goobang Junction to Acacia Ridge via Cootamundra and Sydney would use some 9000lt more of fuel and produce 25tonnes more Greenhouse emissions than the same 3500tonne train via the Inland link.  The savings by routing the train via the Warwick route as against the proposed route via Toowoomba would be some 1350lt of fuel and some 3.75 tonnes of greenhouse emissions and a minimum of one hour in transit time.

Based upon current tonnages on rail alone without any additional tonnage diverted from road this would see three trains per day in each direction.  It is anticipated that a further 10% of the freight currently being moved by road over this route would move to rail in the first year of operation seeing at least one additional train daily in each direction.

Further advantages would be for traffic such as grain from North West New South Wales, this is currently moved by road to Brisbane for export because of the present lack of a rail link.  Each rail wagon of 70tonne capacity takes two B Doubles off the highways.  Fuel from Brisbane to North West New South Wales is also presently moved by road and the cost savings in moving this by rail would see this freight also move to rail which would further reduce the demands on the road infrastructure.

Other traffic that would utilise this line would be grain traffic for export that presently is moved south from Moree by rail to Newcastle for export or by road to the Port of Brisbane.  Container traffic to and from the terminal at Moree which presently has no rail access to Brisbane, the nearest port which has the advantage over southern ports of being a days sailing time closer to Asia for shipping.

Traffic on the present Dirrinbandi line would also gain with the infrastructure upgrade, if the line was routed via Warwick, the line east of Goondiwindi to Warwick could be reconstructed as a standard gauge only line instead of dual gauge, the cost savings made could be then be utilised to regauge the line west of Goondiwindi which would shorten the rail haul for grain and cotton to the Port of Brisbane by some 100km and recover freight much of which is currently handled by road. 

The line west of Goondiwindi could be regauged by replacing every fourth sleeper and moving the rails out, the replacement of life expired sleepers and rerailing with rail of 41kgm or heavier which would see this section of line available for axle loads in excess of the existing 15 tonne axle load on the QR narrow gauge line.

The somewhat circuitous route proposed by the ATEC group for the standard gauge line via Toowoomba, Miles, Wandoan, Taroom, Theodore and Moura to Gladstone would increase operating costs, transit times and greenhouse emissions and effectively make rail less competitive with road when compared with the more direct and logical alternative route direct from Carrington to Miles and thence to Gladstone which would shorten the line haul for freight between Gladstone and Goobang Junction by some 227km

Points of further consideration are the effect of lower freight costs on the product of industry, to regional economies and the significant reduction of greenhouse emissions.

The savings to the national economy in lower transport costs of the inland rail link would also act to slow inflation, significantly reduce fuel consumption (an estimated minimum annual saving based upon existing rail hauled freight volumes without any transfer of freight from road to rail, of some 26.250.000lt of fuel annually) and a lowering of greenhouse emissions (estimated as in excess of 73.000tonnes annually).

These figures are based upon existing rail freight tonnages without the anticipated transfer of freight presently moved by road to more efficient and environmentally rail.

Increased investment in rail infrastructure in a more relative proportion to the share of freight between road and rail would produce real benefit for the overall community.  Reductions in freight costs benefit the community and road safety is enhanced with the reduction in heavy vehicle numbers on the highways as well as reducing the demands on road infrastructure.

mufreight  September 2008

[mufreight]

As the author of the article I was somewhat surprised that with the numbers of people who have opened and presumably read the article that there has been no feedback or comment,
The motivation to write the article was to promote this nationaly important land transport project and invite comment.

Mufreight.

[ozbob]

A lack of critical comment might well infer support mu.  I lot of folks read things here but are not necessarily registered and therefore don't post.

The fact it is being read is a good thing.

Regards
Bob

[Matt]

Mufreight,
              A very well written article indeed.
I gather you must have extensive experience in the rail freight arena.
I am surprised that the "experts", the ATEC group have got some things wrong in their submission, I guess it's a trade off between initial costs ( revamping existing track vs greenfield construction) and competitive efficiency from better alignments and better chosen  routes.

I feel rail has all the answers to the problems of fuel efficiency & safety ( getting those trucks off the public highway).
Lets hope the Rudd team have seen the writing on the wall.
Mal.

[mufreight]

Considering the present economic and employment situation with the growing unemployment nation wide what better time than now to build the section of the Inland railway from North Star in New South Wales via Warwick to join the existing standard gauge line in the region of Bromelton - Tamrookum.
It would provide employment for many and when completed would have an inflation reducing effect on land transport costs to and from Queensland and have environmental benefits getting large numbers of trucks off this nations roads.
This should be a federal government project or a Queensland Government project funded by the commonwealth.
Maybe Anna can announce it the day before the pending Queensland election.

[somebody]

Posted on behalf of mufreight.  This article has just been published in the Railway Digest.

For traffic from the west, (Adelaide, Whyalla and Perth) which is presently routed through Goobang Junction, Cootamundra and Sydney to Acacia Ridge would if routed via Moree and Warwick see the distance shortened by 438km and a minimum time saving of some 5 hours, the actual savings in transit time would be considerably greater as the inland route has better alignment and grades which would mean further savings in time of possibly a further three hours over the present coastal route.

For traffic between Melbourne and Acacia Ridge the difference in distance is marginal, only 61km shorter, but transit time savings of better than three hours are possible over the present route via Sydney and the coastal route and that makes no allowance for delays as a consequence of the curfew on freight movements through the Sydney metropolitan area.  The easier grades of the inland route would mean considerable fuel savings lowering operating costs and reduced emissions of greenhouse gasses.

At the present time there is better than 6000 tonnes of freight railed to Acacia Ridge daily that would move to the inland route, this is almost double the projected freight loadings that were used to justify the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin rail link.  It is anticipated that the Inland rail link once in operation would see more than 10% of the freight presently hauled by road between Melbourne and Brisbane diverted to rail in the first year of operation.

This is a good rebuttal of the via Toowoomba route.  But what about upgrades to the coastal route?  Currently only 61km longer, and a much greater proportion of double track.  With improvements like Fassifern-Stroud Rd, properly built, you could get more or less the same advantages for Mel-Bne freight, except no double stacking and having to deal with a freight curfew in Sydney.  The advantage is that there is presently some traffic which is helping to pay for maintenance and upgrades to that line.  Is going inland spreading your money too thinly?

[paulg]

ATEC are making noises again, announcing that they have "approval" for the Border Railway between Moree and Toowoomba...
not sure whether they have secured any funding??

http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2009/10/24/rail-link-design-gets-green-light/

Rail link design gets green light

Jim Campbell | 24th October 2009

THE region?s political leaders yesterday praised news  that approval had been given to proceed with the design of a rail line linking Toowoomba and Moree.

Australian Transport and Energy Corridor (ATEC) leader Everald Compton made the announcement at a Chamber of Commerce breakfast in Toowoomba yesterday.

The Border Railway will be a 340-kilometre open access standard gauge railway and cost about $900 million.

Mr Compton says  it would give Queensland its long overdue second interstate rail link, as it would connect with an existing standard gauge railway from Moree to Parkes that links with tracks to Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth.

Mayor Peter Taylor said council would do everything in its power to fast-track the project in order to get the section of line built by 2014.

?There is an absolutely desperate need to get heavy freight off the road and on to rail as the huge development in our area continues,? Cr Taylor said.

?The safety of rail versus road for heavy freight movement is undeniable.?

Cr Taylor said the railway construction would boost the operation of the Charlton-Wellcamp industrial area.

?We are well prepared for this. The planned route connects to the proposed Toowoomba bypass route as well as some co-location of rail and road corridors in closer to the city,? he said.

Federal Member for Groom Ian Macfarlane said the project was directly connected with the economic future of Toowoomba and the Darling Downs.

?Along with the Toowoomba Bypass, the Inland Rail Link would provide a range of new economic opportunities not only for our region, but for Western Queensland as well,? he said.

Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Barnaby Joyce, commended Mr Compton on his work.

?Toowoomba to Moree is a vital link and now we must look at other links such as Narrabri to Coonamble and Toowoomba to Gladstone and Toowoomba through the Range to Brisbane."

[tomato]

The perspective has indeed changed given the release of the papers prepared & released through 2009 by ARTC as a result of the Federal Govt $15 M Inland railway study

Posted on behalf of mufreight.  This article has just been published in the Railway Digest.

INLAND RAIL A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE


There is an alternative to route the line via Warwick which would require no resumption's in the developed urban area between Rosewood and Kagaru, would be some 65km shorter and only require the construction of 136km of new line and reconstruction of 202km of existing narrow gauge line for an overall length of 386km.

There can be considerable savings made by routing the line via Warwick rather than via Toowoomba, these savings come from the lower cost of constructing the shorter length of infrastructure, reduced maintenance costs, lower operating costs and the shorter transit times which will help make rail more competitive with road. 

The section of line between Thane (some 40km west of Warwick) and the existing standard gauge line at Tamrookum would be a green field construction and as such it could be constructed to the optimum alignment, clearances and track standards allowing for fast (160kph inter-modal operation) and container double stacking and it would be less costly to construct by not having to be constructed under traffic conditions and by being both shorter and built to optimum standards of alignment and grade even more economical to operate making the line even more competitive with road both in transit times and cost.

mufreight  September 2008

The ARTC Melbourne-Brisbane Inland Rail Alignment Study
Stage 1 Working Paper No. 5
Financial and Economic Assessment and Identification of the Route for Further Analysis
Has analysed the Warwick- Coast option quite extensively.....following is a brief overview

p 10 of {PDF} 85
The purpose of Working Paper No. 5 as defined in the scope for the Financial and Economic Consultant is to provide an:

economic and financial analysis and identification of the preferred route, to determine the route that generates the maximum economic benefit. This step would evaluate the Albury and Shepparton routes to eliminate one option.

In addition, this paper will evaluate the Toowoomba and Warwick options and identity a route for further analysis, based on seeking to maximise economic benefits.

p35
This analysis has confirmed (with even more detailed review to follow in Stage 2) that almost 50% of the capital cost estimated by the LTC for an inland railway is incurred over this last 26% of the route distance as the line descends from an elevation of 690 m at Toowoomba or 450 m at Warwick to 60-80 m over a horizontal distance of approximately 20-30 km.
Akin to the route through northern Victoria and southern NSW, two distinct route options emerge being:

-  Warwick route – a new 'greenfield' route via Warwick to the existing standard gauge Sydney-Brisbane line near Tamrookum. This could have the potential to reduce distance and costs by providing a more direct link to the south side of Brisbane. Such a line would cross the range to the east of Warwick and traverse parts of the Main Range National Park near the NSW/Queensland border; and

- Toowoomba route – a new corridor direct from Inglewood to Millmerran and Oakey, near Toowoomba, and then a new Gowrie to Grandchester link; thence using the proposed Southern Freight Rail Corridor from Rosewood to Kagaru.

p36
- the Warwick route retains sizable cost issues due to the descent of the escarpment requiring 24 km long viaducts and three spirals to meet maximum ruling grade specification of 1 in 67;

- the Warwick route has some significant environmental impacts and uncertainties as it traverses national parks which create a constraint to the feasibility of this route;

p79
A key issue in this area is the choice of a route via Warwick or via Toowoomba (Gatton), hence the figure below has been included. This graph shows identical data to the figure above except that the data points have been combined to illustrate Warwick and Toowoomba options. It can be seen from the figure below that Warwick options are all more expensive, but are generally faster than Toowoomba options.

p82
In effect, this means that no options via Warwick or Shepparton would be considered further.

[mufreight]

The Inland railway route between Inglewood and the existing standard gauge costal line in the region of Tamrookum – Kagaru.

The consultants have apparently at this time decided that it is uneconomical to construct the line the more direct route via Warwick on the basis that such a line although being some 80 kilometers shorter than the route that is now being proposed via Millmeran and Toowoomba on the basis that the line via Warwick would require the construction of three spirals and some 24 kilometers of viaduct.

This would appear to be a case of vested interests using 18th century early 19th century engineering practices to justify constructing the line via Toowoomba where it is understood that a group has already purchased land at Gowrie for the construction of an intermodal freight terminal.

As in the late 1800's (1884) it was proposed to construct a more direct line between Brisbane and Warwick via Spicers gap and Mt Edwards which using the construction technology of the time did not require any spirals and used minimal bridging and viaducts and very limited short sections of tunnel yet achieved an alignment with a maximum ruling grade of 1 in 39.

With modern tunneling equipment a rail tunnel of some 12 kilometers under Spicers Gap would see the line shortened further and a maximum grade of 1 in 100 or possibly less.

The inland line is supposedly to be constructed to cater for the increasing volumes of north south freight and to take this freight off the nations roads yet to suit seemingly vested interests it is proposed to construct a longer and slower line that will be more costly overall to construct and operate thus giving the road freight industry a further advantage in competition with rail.

The costs of constructing a long base line tunnel would be considerably lower than the additional 80 plus kilometers of line and the reconstruction of the existing narrow gauge lines from Helidon to Rosewood (double track, some 180 track kilometres) and new crossings of the Toowoomba range and Little Liverpool range which will involve the construction of an extensive length of tunnels possiblr as much as 7 kilometres.

If the line is built via Toowoomba a choice will have to be made is the line to cater for the operation of double stacked containers or be electrified to the west of Rosewood for the extension of passenger services to Gatton and Helidon without requiring a separate fleet of rolling stock to cater for the increased heights of the overhead to provide clearance for the operation of double stacking.

If as has been argued it is the intention to provide a standard gauge rail connection to the port of Gladstone from the south it makes little sense to detour the line from Carrington (Goondwindi) via Toowoomba then west to Miles before continuing north via Wandoan and Banana to Gladstone when a direct line from Carrington to Miles would be some 240 plus kilometers shorter and three hours in transit times faster and more cost effective placing rail in a position to compete with road freight.

[somebody]

Indeed there is a reasonably good quality track for coal trains as far as Narrabri and a lesser quality track as far as North Star.  The latter is used for grain.  If going from NSW or Melbourne to Gladstone via Wondoan, it would be far better to simply connect up these tracks as I see it.

What's with the obsession with a Toowoomba-Brisbane link?  While Toowoomba is a decent size town, it could never sustain a railway more than a branch line in it's own right.

[mufreight]

Perhaps the determination of some in the Federal Government to route the line via Toowoomba could be attributed to the vested interests and political influence of some who have already purchased land at Gowrie for an intermodal freight terminal and others who like the Australian Transport and Energy Corridor group who despite to this time having yet to do anything constructive in respect of the construction of this rail link of national importance has a quite considerable vested interest and the political influence to promote this groups own agenda regardless of which route would be in the best interests of the community.
The Queensland Government should construct, own and operate this line from the point of connection to the New South Wales system as a replacement for the partially constructed Via Recta line sections of which were constructed between Warwick and Maryvale and Ipswich and Mt Edwards in 1910 with the Maryvale to Warwick section being closed on the 1st November 1960.

[mufreight]

More on the Inland Rail.

On the 9th August "Somebody" made the following post in which he questioned,
"what about a completely Greenfield Narrabri-Brisbane via Warwick"

Also on the same day "Colin W" noted that,
"I'm originally from Toowoomba, and know the Southern Downs Area quite well, one thing that continually surprises me is that the Inland Rail proposals going all the way back to the Via Recta have always proposed taking a direct path through some of the hardest terrain around.
The fact is that the easiest graded, most sensible route across the range has never been considered.  Proposal after proposal either wants to ascend the range in the area of Cunninghams Gap or Spicers Gap, or take a circuitous approach to the north via Toowoomba where the range is somewhat easier buy still a major obstacle.
Meanwhile, the existence of a relatively gentle approach to the main range about halfway between Toowoomba and Cunninghams Gap goes largely un-noticed.  The route I'm talking about would roughly follow Route 80, Gatton to Clifton road. (this is the old Murphys Creek road up the range which saw considerable use with heavy trucks and oversize loads crossing the range in the 1940/50 years)  Coming off the Main line just west of Gatton, I would propose to follow the approach route of the road via Winwill, Ma Ma Creek, Mt Whilestone, West Haldon, Hirstglen and Pilton."

This post was then followed by a further post by "Somebody".
"Cunninghams Gap is still shorter.  Would a tunnel through the range which appears to be quite steep, but short, make this route more viable than the route 80 option?"

To respond to these posts first let us make some comparisons.

All proposals follow basically the same alignments from North Star in New South Wales to Inglewood in Queensland, from that point the proposed routes differ.
Via Millmerran, Gowrie, Toowoomba and Ebenezer to join the existing standard gauge line near Kagaru.
Via Thane, bypassing Warwick to the north about halfway between Warwick and Hendon then to Meryvale and through the range in the vicinity of Cunninghams Gap to Boonah and joining the existing standard gauge line between Bromelton and Tamrookum.

In terms of distance the line via Cunninghams Gap would be some 85km shorter but apart from the two tunnels that would be required would require far less major infrastructure than the alternative route via Toowoomba.

It would seem that in an attempt to justify construction the line via Toowoomba the consultants claimed that to route the line via Warwick would require the construction of three spirals and some 24 km of viaduct.
In reality each of the three alternative options to descend the range each based upon 19th century engineering practice contained ONE spiral or partial spiral, not as claimed three spirals.
Using modern engineering practice a base line tunnel of some 13 to 14 km through the main range would provide a more direct and easier graded line with a maximum ruling gradient of approximately 120 to 1 as against a maximum grade of approximately 90 to 1 if the line were to be routed via Toowoomba.

As in the late 1800's (1884) it was proposed to construct a more direct line between Brisbane and Warwick via Spicers gap and Mt Edwards which using the construction technology of the time did not require any spirals and used minimal bridging and viaducts and very limited short sections of tunnel yet achieved an alignment with a maximum ruling grade of 1 in 39.

With modern tunneling equipment a rail tunnel of some 12 kilometers under Spicers Gap would see the line shortened further and a maximum grade of 1 in 100 or possibly less.

The inland line is supposedly to be constructed to cater for the increasing volumes of north south freight and to take this freight off the nations roads yet to suit seemingly vested interests it is proposed to construct a longer and slower line that will be more costly overall not only to construct but also to operate thus giving the road freight industry a further advantage in competition with rail.

The costs of constructing a long base line tunnel would be considerably lower than the additional 80 plus kilometers of line and the reconstruction of the existing narrow gauge lines from Helidon to Rosewood (double track, some 180 track kilometres) and new crossings of the Toowoomba range and Little Liverpool range which will involve the construction of an extensive length of tunnels possibly as much as 7 kilometres.

By comparison the route via Toowoomba will require the construction of some 165 km of new greenfield alignment, the realignment and reconstruction of some 383 km existing ng line to standard gauge standards while under traffic, a far more costly work than Greenfield construction.

This compared with the route via Warwick which would entail the Greenfield construction of 136 km of new standard gauge alignment and the realignment and reconstruction of only 202 km of existing ng alignment to standard gauge standards.

The route via Warwick would admittedly require in total some 14 km of tunnel as against some 7 to 8 km required via Toowoomba but this would be more than compensated for by the higher operating speeds and lower costs of operation as a result of better alignment, easier grades and shorter distance.

In comparison with the route suggested by Colin W via Murphys Creek the line via Warwick is again shorter, faster due to its better alignment and grades and less costly to construct.
One could easily come to the conclusion that vested interests are promoting the Toowoomba route as by the use of a base line tunnel and modern engineering practices no spirals or extensive viaducts are required to construct a shorter faster line that would cater for the operation of double stacked intermodal freight services and be time competitive with road freight.

By not routing the standard gauge inland rail link down the range from Toowoomba the inland line can cater for the operation of double stacked intermodal freight services thus leaving the way clear for the extension of electrification on the western line beyond Rosewood to Gatton and Toowoomba for the operation of passenger services once a new tunnel is constructed to cross the Little Liverpool Range between Grandchester and Laidley.

The short answer to the question posed by Somebody of "would a tunnel through the range which appears to be quite steep, but short, make this route more viable than the route 80 (Murphys Creek) option?  Unquestionably YES, and also less costly to construct and more importantly to operate.