Article: Debate rages over Beaudesert rail service

[ozbob]

From the Logan West Leader click here!

Debate rages over Beaudesert rail service

Debate rages over Beaudesert rail service

29 Jul 09 @ 08:43am

LONG-suffering Jimboomba and Greenbank commuters have received a commitment of sorts from the State Government on a passenger rail line to Beaudesert.

On Monday, Transport Minister Rachel Nolan told the Leader she was prepared to ?very actively?? look at the alignment of the existing rail corridor to narrow gauge line to make it compatible with the city train passenger network.

The narrow-gauge city train network breaks at Acacia Ridge, with only interstate trains able to travel further south.

Ms Nolan said buying trains and building new track and stations would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and the government wanted to do it properly.

Her comments contrasted with a department spokesman who, earlier on Monday, stated that future public transport demands in the area were unlikely to warrant a rail proposal before 2056.

Last week, Member for Beaudesert Aidan McLindon put forward an idea for a passenger service which could be implemented in 12 months using the existing single-gauge rail line.

Mr McLindon?s idea involves running diesel carriages along the rail line through Logan and Browns Plains to Acacia Ridge, before passengers connect into the Brisbane rail network.

He said initial pilot program costings were minimal compared to the money that would be needed to build or convert other rail lines.
?The idea is for a 12-month pilot program to run morning and evening peak-hour services,? he said.

?The infrastructure is already in place and the relatively minor costs for a few low level pick-ups and loop lines will be enormously beneficial for residents wanting to use public transport.?

Ms Nolan labelled Mr McLindon?s proposal as ?hare-brained? because it was uncosted and unfunded.

Robert Dow, spokesman for commuter advocacy group Rail Back on Track, said passenger rail was needed before 2050.

?We?ve got time now to do it properly. Let?s not rush it when it?s too late,?? he said.

?It?s important to offer people choice. People need to be able to use safe, frequent, accessible public transport and I have no doubt they will vote with their feet.??

The Minister?s spokesman said Ms Nolan would meet with Mr McLindon in August, but was hopeful the scheme he had foreshadowed had been considered beyond the writing of a press release.

[ozbob]

E-petition Queensland Parliament

TO: The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland

Queensland residents draws to the attention of the House that readers of the Southern Star and Kooralbyn Times support a proposal to run DMU?s on the rail line in peak morning and afternoon periods to provide another public transport option and reduce overcrowding on current bus services and reduce congestion on local roads.

Your petitioners, therefore, request the House to have the Transport Minister Rachel Nolan implement this trial, assess passenger interest and increase services if required as soon as possible.

--> http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/EPetitions_QLD/CurrentEPetition.aspx?PetNum=1285&lIndex=-1

[mufreight]

Unfortunately I for one have to agree with Minister Nolan on this one, the operation of passenger services along this corridor as far as Bromelton has merit but as proposed is impractical for many reasons, the least of which is that many of the freight services currently using this line arrive or depart in the peak periods for commuter travel also at the present time there is congestion on the section between Dutton Park and Roma Street and the operation of peak period passenger services on the standard gauge line would excabate that problem.
If the services were only operated as far as Salisbury and passengers had to interchange there onto narrow gauge services to continue their journey the concept becomes self defeating.
For such services to be practical rail capacity between Dutton Park and the CBD needs amplification (the underground and cross river link) and a parallel narrow gauge line needs to be constructed alongside the existing standard gauge line as far as Allenview then through Gleneagle to Beaudesert.
This would avoid the conflicts between the interstate freight operations and commuter services but the key to this proposal is increased capacity between Dutton Park and the CBD without which it is impractical. 

[stephenk]

I agree with everything in mufreight's post!

[O_128]

I agree with everything in mufreight's post!

yep a few DMUs are not going to cut it. this is going to have to wait in line behind the springfield and kipparing lines so an estiamtion of completion say 2200

[ozbob]

From the Logan Leader click here!

Greenbank passenger rail plan is ditched on cost

Greenbank passenger rail plan is ditched on cost

02 Mar 10 @ 11:27am by mark flack

THE State Government has rejected a plan to establish a passenger train service on the interstate freight line through Beaudesert, saying it was not warranted and too expensive.
In a letter to State member for Beaudesert Aidan McLindon last month, Transport Minister Rachel Nolan said the proposal had been reviewed by the TransLink Transit Authority and the Transport Department and was "not considered viable at this time''.

She said the plan would be "prohibitively expensive'' because the line was not suitable for suburban passenger trains as the line was not suitable for suburban passenger trains because of a difference in track widths and non-electrification, any plan to use diesel powered trains would be "prohibitively expensive''.

Her letter said the plan would require numerous resumptions and cost about $150million for infrastructure such as stations along the track.
But Mr McLindon, a long-time champion of the proposal, rejected the figures and said a pilot program would cost much less.

The LNP member said billions of dollars in infrastructure was already in place and any additional amount would be minuscule in comparison.

"Any costs are very minimal in terms of the overall project. Most of the infrastructure is already there,'' Mr McLindon said.

"They've only got to add a minuscule amount in comparison for it to be successful,'' Mr McLindon said.

"It's a win for the Government, it's a win for the whole area.

"It doesn't make sense for them to turn a cold shoulder on this, given it's the second fastest (growing) region in Queensland.''

He called on the Minister to provide comprehensive costings for the plan.

Rail Back on Track spokesman Robert Dow said while commuter trains would be needed in the future, it was hard to justify the cost right now.

He said his group wanted a second rail line built along the same corridor, which would negate concerns over compatibility and disruption to freight services.

"We think in time Bromelton is going to become the major freight distribution hub,'' he said.

"At that point, and with the residential developments continuing, there is a strong case for a second railway line to be used as a commuter line to connect with the main southern line at south Acacia Ridge and everyone wins ultimately.

"But at the moment it's pretty hard to justify the cost and the dislocation that would occur for one or two trains a day.''

[ozbob]

The line is being dual gauged to Bromelton, but that is so freight can run to and from the new freight distribution centre there.  One problem with electrifying that line means it will rule out double stack containers should that eventuate.   Perhaps it would have been a better long term option to put a 3'6" line in the corridor next to the standard gauge rather than dual gauge?

There is some confusion on this upgrade:  two things, sleeper upgrade border to Acacia Ridge, dual gauge Bromelton to Acacia Ridge ..

Border – Acacia Ridge Track Upgrade (QLD) – This project will complete concrete sleepering on the Sydney – Brisbane corridor and provide narrow gauge access between Acacia Ridge and Bromelton.

Nation Building
RAIL, ROAD, EDUCATION & RESEARCH AND BUSINESS  click here!

[mufreight]

The dual gauging of the line between Acacia Ridge and Bromelton has been done by the Federal Government for the operation of ng freight services into the Bromelton industrial precinct that is being developed by the State Government.
With the operation of the additional freight services over this dual gauge section and the operation of sg freight services the provision of paths for ng passenger services could not be guranteed.
The logical move is the construction of a parallel ng line in the corridor, this could be electrified for passenger services without rendering the operation of double stacked intermodal freight services impractical.

[Jon Bryant]

But that would take political guts... Which are lacking in any of our houses of parliament or councils. 

[O_128]

2056 is way to late. Why not borrow 2 DMUs from sydney and try it out there is nothing to lose.

[mufreight]

Where would they get the DMU's from to operate such a proposed service, if such a pilot were to be operated on ng none exist in this country that conform to the QR ng loading gauge if it were to be operated on SG NSW City Rail has no surplus sets that would be suitable the VR Velocity sets are all broard gauge and would have to be regauged.
If rollingstock were to become avaliable it would be the most unreliable passenger commuter service in Australia due to conflicts with freight movements both SG and NG and with the lack of avaliable paths through the Park Rd - Roma Street section create havoc in the peaks if operated as a ng service and total disruption to Gold Coast services From Sailsbury to Roma Street if operated as a SG service,
Fix the track capacity problems into the CBD by the construction of additional capacity by building the underground cross river rail link which will release capacity as a first stage then a fourth line between Sailsbury and the start of the new cross river link then it becomes a practical possibility to provide a reasonable level of service for commuters, untill then it is simply pie in the sky fantasy.
     

[#Metro]

Suppose that we could find a vehicle to run the track.
The service would continue to Bethania and then terminate.
Passengers would have to transfer across.

This might simplify the problem

[johnnigh]

From some rumours about the double-laning of the dreadful Johnson Rd, and the new bridge over the southern rail line, I gather that ultimate plans for the southern rail is for a corridor that can accept quadruple lines. If my grandchildren live long enough in a peaceful and stable world, they might just see this happen. 

[somebody]

mufreight, to be fair he did say to get them from Sydney.  I seriously doubt Sydney would have any Endeavours or whatever free though.  Loading gauge wouldn't be an issue if coming in to Roma St #1 & #2, but how would the services leave the platform from there?  Even with cross river rail, I'm not sure a DMU would get from Fairfield-Salisbury in the gap between Gold Coast services.  Perhaps if the suggested quadding goes through, and as DG.  Only then would there be any sense in the DMU proposal.

[stephenk]

From the Logan Leader click here!

Greenbank passenger rail plan is ditched on cost

Greenbank passenger rail plan is ditched on cost

02 Mar 10 @ 11:27am by mark flack

THE State Government has rejected a plan to establish a passenger train service on the interstate freight line through Beaudesert, saying it was not warranted and too expensive.
In a letter to State member for Beaudesert Aidan McLindon last month, Transport Minister Rachel Nolan said the proposal had been reviewed by the TransLink Transit Authority and the Transport Department and was "not considered viable at this time''.

She said the plan would be "prohibitively expensive'' because the line was not suitable for suburban passenger trains as the line was not suitable for suburban passenger trains because of a difference in track widths and non-electrification, any plan to use diesel powered trains would be "prohibitively expensive''.

Her letter said the plan would require numerous resumptions and cost about $150million for infrastructure such as stations along the track.
But Mr McLindon, a long-time champion of the proposal, rejected the figures and said a pilot program would cost much less.

The LNP member said billions of dollars in infrastructure was already in place and any additional amount would be minuscule in comparison.

"Any costs are very minimal in terms of the overall project. Most of the infrastructure is already there,'' Mr McLindon said.

"They've only got to add a minuscule amount in comparison for it to be successful,'' Mr McLindon said.

"It's a win for the Government, it's a win for the whole area.

"It doesn't make sense for them to turn a cold shoulder on this, given it's the second fastest (growing) region in Queensland.''

He called on the Minister to provide comprehensive costings for the plan.

Rail Back on Track spokesman Robert Dow said while commuter trains would be needed in the future, it was hard to justify the cost right now.

He said his group wanted a second rail line built along the same corridor, which would negate concerns over compatibility and disruption to freight services.

"We think in time Bromelton is going to become the major freight distribution hub,'' he said.

"At that point, and with the residential developments continuing, there is a strong case for a second railway line to be used as a commuter line to connect with the main southern line at south Acacia Ridge and everyone wins ultimately.

"But at the moment it's pretty hard to justify the cost and the dislocation that would occur for one or two trains a day.''

Erm, has Logan Council told the State Government about Greater Flagstone yet?

[mufreight]

Tramtrain please note that the standard gauge line which is in the process of being dual gauged runs nowhere near Bethania.
The comment by Somebody reflects on my previous post as to the supply of SG DMU units and reading of my posts makes the point that there are no suitable SG or NG units avaliable to operate such a service.
Broad gauge units such as the Victorian Velocity sets would need to be regauged and Broad gauge units that will become avaliable from Adelaide when that system goes to electrified standard gauge operation exceed the standard gauge structure gauge and even if regauged could not be operated on the standard gauge line here in Queensland.
A little more research and attention to the physical and practical limitations of the proposals made would improve the credibility of both those making the and the proposals themselves, unfortunately superimposing other forms of rail operation over existing infrastructure is frequently impractical and can not be done without impinging on the operations that the infrastructure was created for and either making those operations impractical or excessively inconvenient and costly.

[O_128]

Also i was talking about the hunter rail cars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CityRail_Hunter_railcar

[#Metro]

Tramtrain please note that the standard gauge line which is in the process of being dual gauged runs nowhere near Bethania.

Sorry, I crossed two seperate rail lines in my head...

[mufreight]

There are currently NO surplus DMU sets operating on SG be they Hunter, Explorer or Endeavor sets that could be made avaliable for a pilot operation and as the demand for services using such equipment increases in NSW the avaliability of such equipment being avaliable for lease or loan deminishes.

[somebody]

There are currently NO surplus DMU sets operating on SG be they Hunter, Explorer or Endeavor sets that could be made avaliable for a pilot operation and as the demand for services using such equipment increases in NSW the avaliability of such equipment being avaliable for lease or loan deminishes.

Also, one would wonder if a pilot operation would be worthwhile.  You'd have to build stations for those services at a minimum.  Let's say that the old 620/720 Hunter railcars could be obtained, on current infrastructure you could only achieve a two peak train single direction service, stabling on Roma St #1 & #2.  Perhaps with a minor signalling upgrade you could make that four smaller trains, two per platform.  Then, during the day perhaps an hourly return service to Roma St.  Then advocates would say that the trial was a flop because the service wasn't done properly, and call for upgrades to allow a proper service.

The only way an SG DMU would even be worth thinking about would be to Algester with a change at Salisbury.  The dwell time could be fairly critical as it needs to get off the platform in between Coasties.  But who would want to use the service?  I'd much rather use the 13x buses which given me a single seat service to the CBD and probably would come closer to my house while giving a faster journey time.  Further south, it's the same story with the 14x bus.

[somebody]

I have to wonder, if this track is electrified, would there be a case for a single direction, peak time only service as far as Greenbank after cross river rail.  There's a few questions:
1.  Would there be any freight which wants to run counter to that direction?
2.  Could northbound AM and southbound PM freight services fit in between said services without too much difficulty?
3.  Is there a realistic possibility of double stacking in the foreseeable future?
4.  Would said service get much patronage?

[#Metro]

The pro of this idea is that the corridor is there and it probably could support the construction of extra tracks alongside to
support a passenger service. This makes it cheaper.

The con of this idea is that the corridor alignment is off. Although it would be cheaper and easier to do, it misses a lot of demand.
It might be more costly, but have greater benefits and be more useful to construct a new line branching between Altandi and Runcorn and follow a Pinelands-Calam Rd-Beaudesert Road alignment. Raised sections, and use of the road reserves (and yes, probably resumptions) would be required.

This will be costly, without a doubt. But that is the price of "let it sprawl" policies. May the costs come back to them and bite them on the b*m. The costs simply get shifted to the government and then it is all "to big to fix".

Construction of a rail line + feeders would have to be weighed against the alternatives: bendy buses, busway and "do nothing".
There is a lot of demand- BUZ 150, BUZ 130 and BUZ 140 as well as a lot of smaller routes in the area 115, 131, 135 etc.

[#Metro]

Rough idea:

Stations approx at:
Netting St, Sunnybank South behind Coles
Cnr Pinelands & Helawell Road
Sunnybank Hills Shoppingtown, Compton Rd
Beaudesert Road, Parkinson opposite Woolworths
Browns Plains, Grand Plaza shopping centre
Greenbank RSL
Boronia Heights, Short Street

Spur length: 13 km
Estimated construction cost: 800 million (low) - 4 billion (high).
Estimated operating cost (all stations): 28.5 million/year
Based on Mass Transit Report 2007 numbers...

May need to be express...

This is not a piece of professional advice. Not fit for any purpose.
Obviously a study and community consultation has to be done...

[somebody]

I'd have to say that the main thing the SG corridor has going for it is that it can be expanded largely without tunnelling or resumptions.  Perhaps a few between Salisbury & Beaudesert Rd.  That's a big negative of the more eastern alignment. 

What I would like to see in this region, besides a debatable rail service:
1. A full time routing of the P129, 130, 136 via Hellawell Rd, and the 130 use Captain Cook Bridge.  Also the P129 to stick on Algester Rd.  You'd then question the need for the 131.
2. Abolish the 150.  Make the P151 a BUZ service, probably with a Beenleigh Rd routing, but don't use Honeysuckle Way: stay on Gowan Rd and pick up the last few stops of the 130 and truncate the 130.  Also, make the 156 a BUZ.  It could be debated that a peak time service could run direct down Perse Rd or whatever it's called to Stretton.

If the above was done, the 115 could also be abolished.  More to the point, it eases the pressure on the 130s slightly and almost everyone affected has a better service.  It does cost more to run this service though.

[#Metro]

Time to think train! They are trying to do a job that should be handled by trains by adding more and more buses.
And each bus has an operator... is this the best idea

What really gets my goad is that $4.5 Billion is being spent on Airport Link, $3 Billion on Clem 7 etc. To be fair the ICRCS will have $7 billion spent on it, but that is only for the tunnel, and we have to go begging for funds from Infrastructure Australia to get that. Will we have enough money left over to run any extra trains then?

Buses 130 & 150 were proposed in the Mass Transit Report to terminate & transfer to rail at Sunnybank.

The problem with cost the SG alignment is that it may be cheaper but also have lower benefit due to its alignment.
The problem with the spur line is that it is more expensive, but might have higher benefit due to its alignment.

There are already at least 9 bus routes in this area (P129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 139, 130) with up to 38 buses in peak hour stopping at Altandi station. That is about one every 90 seconds. 133 for example, already runs every 5 minutes in peak and its a rocket! Theoretically that is about 3040 pax/hour/direction in peak, or put it another way, three 6 car trains full (standard bus - 80 pax). This is ignoring other routes such as 115, 135, 150 BUZ, 151, 140, 141 and 540 which go in this general area as well.

There are 215 bus services down this "Mains Road" corridor a day. Assuming 80% capacity is actually taken by passengers this is something like 13, 760 passengers/day. Surely this is more than enough justification for a rail line running trains at least every 30 minutes off peak and every 10-15 during peak.

IMHO, Aidan McLindon may be derided by picking what I see as a off-alignment route and Ms Nolan might have succeeded in deriding the route and the cost, but the principles behind the general idea- a train in this area is required- has been completely missed by both sides.

Imagine how much busway capacity would be freed up with a spur train route...

[somebody]

Time to think train! They are trying to do a job that should be handled by trains by adding more and more buses.
And each bus has an operator... is this the best idea
...
Buses 130 & 150 were proposed in the Mass Transit Report to terminate & transfer to rail at Sunnybank.

The problem with cost the SG alignment is that it may be cheaper but also have lower benefit due to its alignment.
The problem with the spur line is that it is more expensive, but might have higher benefit due to its alignment.

Each bus has an operator, but each train has two, but also uses up more off train resources: signallers, track maintenance workers etc.  I can't see much percentage in having an off peak rail service.  A train is expensive if it isn't carrying lots of people. 

It's also not attractive for pax to change for a Beenleigh or Gold Coast line service.  They'd have a better journey time with a direct bus.  It's better for the 330 route at Zillmere, but I still don't think it can be made attractive without speeding up the rail service by a fair bit.

Using the SG alignment would have less than half the benefit of a Beaudesert Rd or Gowan Rd alignment, but also probably 1/10 the cost.

[#Metro]

A bus has 1 operator for every 80 pax (standard bus)
A train has 2 operators (driver, guard) for 1000 pax
Network controllers etc can be shared around.

I agree that its not attractive to change to a train.
A proper study will be required to determine what is/isn't practical.

Using the SG alignment would have less than half the benefit of a Beaudesert Rd or Gowan Rd alignment, but also probably 1/10 the cost.

The spur route has a number of shopping centres on its alignment as well. This may support businesses and TODs too.
To be fair, I think it is too speculative to say either way.

Public Sector (government) and private companies make decisions in a similar way, but may interpret the results differently.
This is in keeping with the government wanting to maximise social benefit, while the private sector wants to maximise financial benefit (i.e. Profits). Its also why the rail system is on subsidy.

There are pros and cons to the cost/benefit approach. It is possible to have two projects with identical cost/benefit ratios but with one having a higher benefit, and the other a lower one. We'd have to look at Net Present Value etc, and this is highly tricky and best left to the professionals...

If there is a project, one which costs less (i.e. free bicycles to everyone in Sunnybank) but has less benefit (hardly anyone uses it, miniscule increase in PT usage), and one which costs more but has higher benefit, the government should generally pick the more expensive option as this generally maximises the social benefits. (NB: Assuming no financial barrier!).

Looks like a transport study might be worthwhile...

[ghostryder]

somebody

It would be more like Passenger traffic run around the SG Freight and Xpt services. See somebody the SG freighters already have to contend with Passenger trains priority for the xpt and or any heritage trains they also have to contend with a Freight curfew in the Sydney area between 6am and 9am and 3pm and 6pm Monday to Friday. Thats why the SG freighters are pathed to leave their departure points and travel through Sydney to avoid the curfew thats when it goes right. The curfew and delays caused by the Xpt when it runs late create enough grief but if you start putting other passenger obstacles in the way it will cause further pathing and operational issues.

cheers

scott   

[somebody]

Does passenger priority apply in QLD though?  I thought it was an NSW rule.

[longboi]

Does passenger priority apply in QLD though?  I thought it was an NSW rule.

Yeah its pretty much a universal rule that passenger trains get priority.

[somebody]

Who's rule?  It pretty much rules out any service on the DG.

[ghostryder]

It was part of the ARTC lease agreement. It was a clause the NSW governement requested as part of the deal. 

cheers

scott

[somebody]

It was part of the ARTC lease agreement. It was a clause the NSW governement requested as part of the deal. 

That's what I thought, hence my comment that I thought it was a NSW rule.  Unless there's an equivalent rule in the QLD lease, we don't need to be bound by it.

I did forget about that annoying XPT.  That may be one reason why (if it isn't re-scheduled) a new NG corridor may be better than a DG one.

[ghostryder]

Somebody

to reschedule the Xpt would mean a total reworking of the Xpt operations to acheive it would mean rewriting the other xpts timetables and reschedule maintenance times. so yeah mabye a new NG line woudl be best.

cheers

scott   

[longboi]

It was part of the ARTC lease agreement. It was a clause the NSW governement requested as part of the deal. 

That's what I thought, hence my comment that I thought it was a NSW rule.  Unless there's an equivalent rule in the QLD lease, we don't need to be bound by it.

I did forget about that annoying XPT.  That may be one reason why (if it isn't re-scheduled) a new NG corridor may be better than a DG one.

Not an explicit rule but you ask any scheduler or network controller and they will tell you that passenger trains get priority - They have timetables to stick to.

[tomato]

.....from the  Qld legislation.....Transport Infrastructure Act 1994
Chapter 7 Rail transport infrastructure and other matters
Part 8 General

s 266 Priority for regularly scheduled passenger services in allocating train paths

(1) The chief executive may establish a process that regularly allows the chief executive to identify passenger service requirements.

(2) For the process established under subsection (1), the chief executive may, by written notice to a railway manager, require the railway manager to give to the chief executive information about—

(a) the total number of train paths that is possible for a specific section of railway track having regard to the
railway manager's maintenance requirements; and

(b) the existing train paths that are the subject of agreements with railway operators for access to that specific section of railway track; and

(c) the usage of the existing train paths on that specific section of railway track.

(3) After identifying passenger service requirements, the chief executive may give written notice to each accredited person about the passenger service requirements relevant to the railway manager's railway.

(4) A railway manager given a notice under subsection (3) must, whenever a train path is available for the railway manager to allocate, provide for priority to be given to the passenger service requirements as stated in the notice.

(5) In complying with subsection (4), a railway manager must not distinguish between different types of regularly scheduled passenger services.

(6) In charging for access to regularly scheduled passenger services (an access charge), a railway manager must not—

(a) differentiate between similar regularly scheduled passenger services operating or proposed to operate over
the same route at different times of the day; or

(b) set an access charge for a train path that is greater than the access charge set for similar train paths on the same route.

(7) In this section—
available, in relation to the allocation of a train path, includes—

(a) a new train path available for allocation because of rearrangements of train operations or new or upgraded
infrastructure; and

(b) reallocating an existing train path. infrastructure includes rail transport infrastructure and other
rail infrastructure.

passenger service requirements means requirements for train paths for the following—
(a) regularly scheduled passenger services on railway track in the State;

(b) rolling stock that is to be used for a regularly scheduled passenger service and is being relocated for the purpose of providing the service.

Reprint 12E effective 31 March 2010

Thinking about this - above are also the "rules" under which QR Passenger will run over any below rail assets sold in the QRN sale of 2010..... unless relegislated 

[mufreight]

Quote from previous post by "Tomato"
Thinking about this - above are also the "rules" under which QR Passenger will run over any below rail assets sold in the QRN sale of 2010..... unless relegislated
This gives the lie to the government statements regarding the sale of below rail assets which both the Premier and the Transport Minister have stated will not be sold.
Duplicity by any name is still duplicity.

[somebody]

Alright, thanks for that.

Seems to have a lot of waffle in that piece of legislation.

[verbatim9]

Isnt there just a few freight services per day plus one passenger service Northbound and Southbound. There would have to be room in the timetable to cater for at least a electric service frequency of one per hour from 6am - through to midnight if they were really serious about it.

[mufreight]

If the dual gauge line is electrified that writes off any possibility of operating double stacked container trains, a little lack of foresight here as many millions has been already been spent on improving vertical clearances to allow for future operation of double stacked container services without which there will be further SG freight services to move the anticipated tonnages of freight, the dual gauging of the line from Acacia Ridge to Bromelton has been done for freight services, add four or five NG freight services each day and the paths for the operation of an hourly passenger service quickly disappears