Article: Push to bring back Gatton trains

[ozbob]

From the Queensland Times click here!

Push to bring back Gatton trains

Push to bring back Gatton trains

Zane Jackson | 15th June 2011

PASSENGER train services should return to Gatton to serve the burgeoning Lockyer Valley region, according to rail campaigners and community leaders.

With Gatton continuing to grow and the 300-bed, $485 million women's correctional centre at Spring Creek set to open later this year, many believe the time is right to reintroduce services.

The Queensland Rail city network currently ends at Rosewood on the Ipswich line, but there are tracks between Rosewood and Gatton from long gone former passenger services.

Robert Dow, from commuter lobby group Rail Back on Track, said diesel engine trains similar to ones used in Victoria could be used on the existing train tracks straight away.

While those services were operating, Queensland Rail could electrify the line to allow for future electric services.

"We really think it makes sense to extend the services out to Gatton," Mr Dow said.

"There's a need to focus on sustainable transport solutions for the future, and servicing a growing area like the Lockyer Valley with trains is a sensible way to do that."

Lockyer Valley Mayor Steve Jones said electrified lines should be introduced as soon as possible to support the Lockyer Valley and surrounding populations.

"It's something we've lobbied for for years to be done," he said.

Lockyer MP Ian Rickuss said he would prefer to see a bus service introduced between Gatton and the Dinmore train station.

A Transport and Main Roads spokesperson said a rail corridor through the area had been identified in the Gowrie to Grandchester Rail Corridor Study completed in 2003.

The corridor is expected to be delivered between 2026 and 2031.

In a statement, the department said constructing a rail line through the Grandchester range would be difficult.

"The existing alignment is based on 1860s design, and the Gowrie to Grandchester Rail Corridor Study indicates a new tunnel would be required in this location. This means that any interim rail extension from Rosewood to Gatton would involve very significant costs," the statement said.

[Jonno]

But of course the cost of the 4 lane highway was not an issue as it was needed to "keep freight moving" and "make driving safer". 

The article goes from running some diesel trains (a smart idea) to we have to completetly rebuild the line including a tunnel?

[colinw]

Wow, a load of utter twaddle is being spoken about this by the pollies.

Yes, electrification beyond Grandchester is out unless either a deviation is built or the tunnels are modified.  I wouldn't support electrification of the current alignment from Grandchester to Laidley.

BUT, until 1993, the 2000 class railcars managed a faster timetable from Ipswich to Gatton than the current bus + rail combo does.  That includes the relatively short section of single track from Grandchester to the western portal of Victoria tunnel.  Furthermore, the Westlander manages a higher average speed from Roma St to Helidon than the tilt does from Roma St to Cooroy, which shows the potential for a decent DIESEL service is there.

Most of the way from Rosewood to Gatton is nice straight flat double track, with one section of bad gradients & alignment.

The answer for Gatton services is a relatively small fleet of modern diesel railcars, capable of 140km/h or so running where track permits.

What will actually happen?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  If the Sunshine Coast is being ignored, then the Lockyer Valley simply does not exist in the consciousness of our Government.  The ALP will of course ignore it, and the LNP will do their usual Look No Policies thing, take the electorate for granted, and thus do nothing either.

[#Metro]

Time for a "myth buster" release perhaps?

[Stillwater]

The departmental spokesperson completely ignored commenting on Ozbob's suggestion of diesel/hybrid passenger services operating to Gatton.  Note how the spokesperson built a staw man argument of costly tunnels, deviations through mountains and expensive electrification, when what's required, as Osbob suggests, is diesel shuttles to Rosewood/Ipswich.  Operate such a service on a year-long trail and see what passenger numbers emerge -- meaning a decent service (not one train at midnight so govt could say 'see, no-one caught it').

As to the LNP, well you could predict the response now: "The Bligh Government has let down the people of South-East Queensland and squandered opportunities to grow established towns such as Gatton and Rosewood, preferring instead to build rural slums such as Flagstone.  An LNP government would review this situation immediately we get into government.  Life will be better under the LNP."

All words, no substance.  It's Opposition spin versus government spin ('we run a world-class transport service') -- not a cigarette paper between them.

[O_128]

Maybe RBOT should propose a road and see how far that goes.

[SurfRail]

Reality check guys.  We don't have DEMUs or DMUs suitable for this sort of operation, and they won't be coming in a hurry even if they were oredered. 

Why would you introduce a new type into the fleet when you could just provide better bus services for much cheaper outlay?  The 539 timetable is nothing special, and could do with more capacity and speed.  Compared to the cost of acquiring new rollingstock sufficient to run an attractive timetable, I think it is a much more efficient option which can be implemented much more quickly.

[Stillwater]

The budget contained a specific sum of $62 million for 'inter-urban' passenger services.  What does that entail?

[ozbob]

Folks want their rail services back, they don't want a bus.  I travelled on the last Saturday rail motor to Gatton, was a good trip. Even a 2000 class rail motor was effective time wise, updated DMUs would be fine.  There are a couple of 2000s still around that could run tomorrow in reality.  I look at the glass as half full.

The local roads are terrible and very dangerous.  The local mayor is pushing very hard for some sort of rail service.  A fleet of DMUs would actually be useful for a number of services, not only Gatton but other provincial centres.  Also an option when there is track work and de-energisation of the overhead, a number of railways actually do this. 

[colinw]

SurfRail, I hear what you are saying, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you. Partially because Toowoomba & Lockyer Valley are areas dear to my heart - I'm from Toowoomba originally and remember the Helidon Railcars and Toowoomba Co-Ordinated service that was.  The current bus services are a pale shadow of what once ran, and will inevitably fade away to nothing (already under threat beyond Gatton, down to a token return bus each day)..

What you say is true, although I would point out that we don't have any light rail vehicles suitable for use on the Gold Coast and they will take a while coming as well.

The point is that we have been given no credible responses with respect to public transport into this severely public-transport disadvantaged area.

Until 18 years ago there was a railcar service to Gatton and Laidley that was well patronised, and with as fast or faster average speed than the current electric services to Nambour.  Going back a further 15 years there was a good quality service right through to Helidon, which was well patronised with good bus connections to Toowoomba. The scale of the platform & facilities at Helidon are a testament to how busy this service once was before being cynically run down. Helidon even had an operating refreshment room when I was a kid! Today co-ordinated bus/rail to Toowoomba is but a memory, and even the "Metro Link" service connecting from Ipswich is no more.

The rump service we have now is a bus service that is slower, struggles to attract passengers, and has been severely curtailed beyond Gatton to Helidon to the point that it is in danger of cancellation.  Meannwhile the non-Translink inter-city buses to Toowoomba fly up the Warrego Highway ignoring Laidley & Gatton.  The last three times I've used them to/from Toowoomba they did not stop at all to collect or set down passengers anywhere along the Warrego Highway - Transit Centre to Toowoomba non-stop!

Are the people of Laidley, Forest Hill & Gatton second class citizens?  As far as public transport provision goes, I'd say "yes they are", coming a very distant 3rd behind their Gold Coast & Sunshine Coast cousins.

Now obviously I do not expect a service of the same intensity as to (or on) the Gold Coast, or even the Sunshine Coast, but Laidley & Gatton are decent size towns which are developing fast, and are located right on what could be a very good rail corridor.  Yet we ignore their needs, while pushing nonsense like Yarrabilba & Flagstone, or greenfield railways & motorways into places like Ripley.

South East Queensland does not end at Rosewood.

[colinw]

As a challenge, come up with a TransLink excursion to Helidon as a day trip from Roma St.  You will find that what was easy & relatively fast in the 1980s is impossible now.

Gatton is doable, but slower.

[SurfRail]

The budget contained a specific sum of $62 million for 'inter-urban' passenger services.  What does that entail?

I am assuming this covers - among other things - the 6 remaining IMUs (183 to 188) to be delivered as part of the current Downer EDi contracts.  After that, no more new urban trains from Maryborough for our network.

[somebody]

Reality check guys.  We don't have DEMUs or DMUs suitable for this sort of operation, and they won't be coming in a hurry even if they were oredered. 

Why would you introduce a new type into the fleet when you could just provide better bus services for much cheaper outlay?  The 539 timetable is nothing special, and could do with more capacity and speed.  Compared to the cost of acquiring new rollingstock sufficient to run an attractive timetable, I think it is a much more efficient option which can be implemented much more quickly.

+1.

I would also add that the double change required to get from Roma St to Gatton really is a disincentive to use the service, and reducing or preferably removing the change at Ipswich is a much more achievable upgrade also with worthy benefits at inner Ipswich suburbs like Sadliers Crossing (Thomas St station).

The 2009 passenger load survey showed 490 AM peak inbound pax at East Ipswich vs 34 at Thomas St.  Couldn't the lousy service be reducing the patronage?!!

[colinw]

I'm not sure if Thomas St is representative.  For some reason it always seems to be very quiet indeed.

The times I've used the Rosewood train, it has been unusual to see anyone getting on or off at Thomas St or Wulkuraka.  The busiest stations have tended to be Karrabin, Walloon and Rosewood itself.  Thagoona also seems to be a bit on the quiet side.

The double change is indeed a disincentive toward use.  The pre 1993 timetable was a mix of through workings from Roma St (the longer runs like Gatton & Helidon) and change at Ipswich (the short workings to Grandchester & Rosewood).

One thing I'd add is that the usage patterns of the old railcar service tended to focus on Ipswich as the destination, not Brisbane.  When I caught the Helidon motor from Roma St it would have a few people on it using it as a "super express" to Ipswich, but the vast majority of passengers would board at Ipswich.

Not only does SEQ not end at Rosewood, but (this may be a shock), Brisbane is NOT the centre of the universe.

Rosewood, and Lockyer valley services are IPSWICH local region services, with a secondary role of providing access to Brisbane. For the same reason, there need to be better peak hour services toward Ipswich (which I note we are lobbying for).

If we continue to think the system is purely for getting people to within a 2km radius of Roma St & Central, then we will never end up with a decent regional public transport system, just a peak hour centric radial system that provides a marginal alternative to driving up the motorway.

[ozbob]

Some folks will be going to Ipswich for a day out/shopping/appointments etc.  The rail motors on the Stony Point line feeding into Frankston works well.  If this was Victoria I would expect VLocitys running Toowoomba to Brisbane Central every hour.  But of course it is Queensland, always too many reasons why something can't be done, other jurisdictions just bite the bullet and do it ...  

I often go to Ipswich for the day.  It is an interesting place (lots of railway history) but has all the support services that people need to access.  I think Ipswich has a very bright future, particularly as Wulkuraka is expanded.

[colinw]

ozbob, that is what I find so frustrating about public transport in QLD. The vision of what can & should be done is just so limited.  It seems that even daring to suggest doing anything beyond what we have done before just gets howled down or written off as impossible.

The dialog surrounding public transport in QLD - even on this site - is 20 or more years behind jurisdictions like Victoria. Until recently, you simply wouldn't get an organisation like the PTUA with a broad support base emerging here.  It often surprises me just how far you have managed to take RailBOT.  Others tried & failed before you, so the success of RailBOT of attracting a membership base and engaging with the relevant authorities gives me hope that a cultural change is at least starting.

[Derwan]

If you're gonna spend money, wouldn't it make more sense to electrify the line and run current rollingstock rather than order new rollingstock, spend the money on electrifying the line anyway and then having redundant rollingstock?

[ozbob]

There are some issues with tunnels in the Little Liverpool range and further on. Due to the age and small clearances it is doubtful if they could be electrified.  There is a grand plan of a new railway line eventually (bit like go card fare enhancements, always coming ...).  DMUs (particularly hybrids) or even electric hybrids (electrification to Grandchester would be straightforward) and then run through to Helidon on battery.  They will generate a bit going down the hills as well, which would get them from Grandchester to Helidon and back.  

DMUs would actually be very useful as I have outlined above.  

[colinw]

Who says we need to electrify?

Frankly, I wouldn't have electrified beyond Ipswich or north of Caboolture either.  Money would have been better spent on realignment.  Instead we spend hundreds of millions electrifying alignments with 40km/h curves!  Duh!!!!! For that matter, I wouldn't have built those silly political tilt trains either. A non-electrified fully re-aligned NCL from Brisbane to Rockhampton could have matched tilt train running times with conventional non-tilt rolling stock, but of course the real benefits would have been for freight.  As is, we strung up the wires, kept lousy alignments & gradients, and 20 years later ditched electric traction for NCL freight anyway.  Not smart!

Regional rail services may well be better off non-electrified and operated as a DMU service.  I can see other uses for DMUs as well, like lower cost re-opening of lines like Caboolture to Wamuran, Bethania to Logan Village, or for regional services around places like Cairns & Townsville.  Heck, even Toowoomba to Oakey & Dalby is getting to the point where it might support a limited service.

High quality regional passenger rail does not need to be electric.  V/Line shows this, as does the Australind & Avon Link in WA.  Geelong has a much better rail service than the Sunshine Coast does.  Is it electric?

The idea that we MUST have an all-electric service, and that lines must be electrified if we are to provide any service at all, is just another form of infrastructure fetish.  It is also really useful for transport ministers who want to fob off calls for providing a service.

[somebody]

I'm not sure if Thomas St is representative.  For some reason it always seems to be very quiet indeed.

Ok, but East Ipswich is busier than the entire Rosewood line.  I don't believe there are any bus connections there.  It does have parking.  Only four stations on the Ipswich line are less busy in the AM peak than the whole Rosewood line combined.  This also doesn't count reverse patronage, which would almost certainly reduce that number to three and possibly one (Gailes).  Even Gailes is busier than every station on the Rosewood line except for Rosewood.

Frankly, I wouldn't have electrified beyond Ipswich or north of Caboolture either.  Money would have been better spent on realignment.  Instead we spend hundreds of millions electrifying alignments with 40km/h curves!  Duh!!!!!

While I agree with this, I think we have gone so far down the electrification path that we can't justify such a small fleet of DMUs/railcars.  If we really feel that a service is justified, loco hauled may be a better option.  At least that is common with the TravelTrain services, and the SX cars are still serviceable without any special restrictions AIUI.

[HappyTrainGuy]

The budget contained a specific sum of $62 million for 'inter-urban' passenger services.  What does that entail?

I am assuming this covers - among other things - the 6 remaining IMUs (183 to 188) to be delivered as part of the current Downer EDi contracts.  After that, no more new urban trains from Maryborough for our network.

New rollingstock and refurbishments of existing rollingstock I'd guess.

I see the point in electrifying that part of the network as to use all existing rollingstock but there has to be rollingstock available to even run it. If lines and projects keep poping up everywhere such as Kippa Ring/Springfield/CCR/Nambour duplication and people wanting more frequent/additional services to their station then it leaves very little stock to be put into service out there. EMU's are in their final life stages and I expect to see them replaced with the next new stock order. Purchasing DMU's would be costly for just that small section of line and require a recovery loco so I don't see them doing this because of that reason, looking to purchase more electric stock for CityTrain and multiple big projects. A more realistic option would be to use the ex-Sunlander sitter cars but even those are really at the end of their designed lifecycle.

[colinw]

While I agree with this, I think we have gone so far down the electrification path that we can't justify such a small fleet of DMUs/railcars.  If we really feel that a service is justified, loco hauled may be a better option.  At least that is common with the TravelTrain services, and the SX cars are still serviceable without any special restrictions AIUI.

I like that idea. The SX cars could be refurbished to a quite acceptable standard of comfort. Actually, refurbished ones already exist in NZ, and may well be redundant after the wires go up in Auckland.

Here's what the Kiwis did with them (yes, that really is an ex QR SX carriage!)

[ozbob]

Yes, but how ironic hey?  LOL  In view of DEL shortage I think we could use  as well  ... 






(only joking ..  )

[colinw]

1051 plus a couple of SX carriages would go like a scalded cat.  

Meanwhile on Planet Earth, I fully expect to be retired and using my seniors go card long before another passenger rail service pulls up in Gatton.  Heck, at this rate I'll be retired before one arrives in Coolangatta, let alone Maroochydore or anywhere west of Rosewood.

This topic pushes my buttons.  The racetrack across the Lockyer Valley was my favourite rail service.

[ozbob]

We will get there, just takes a bit of time ...

[colinw]

Yeah, and then we can move on to getting the Sydney Mail via Wallangarra back.    (My first ever long distance rail trip, and a treasured childhood memory).

Every time we drive the New England highway, I get a deep feeling of anger when I see what has become of the former Main North between Armidale & Wallangarra.  Such a beautiful, historic route just rotting away unloved.

[Gazza]

Folks want their rail services back, they don't want a bus.

Isn't that modal bias though?

[colinw]

Its the reality of how many people perceive the relative comfort of services.

There have been plenty of documented cases of light rail in particular attracting higher ridership even when it only runs at the same frequency as a bus service it replaced.

Same thing happened in Perth with the Mandurah line, which replaced a frequent and fast bus service with some dedicated lanes.  Patronage went through the roof, because people who will not sit on a bus will catch a train.

[somebody]

Folks want their rail services back, they don't want a bus.

Isn't that modal bias though?

Modal bias is RAIL Back on Track policy.

[Stillwater]

Maybe we could do a deal with our cousins, the Kiwis.  More Australian aid for Christchurch earhquake victims in return for the QR SX carriages that thet have been refurbished.  One person's trash is another person's treasure.   

[mufreight]

Reality check guys.  We don't have DEMUs or DMUs suitable for this sort of operation, and they won't be coming in a hurry even if they were oredered. 

Why would you introduce a new type into the fleet when you could just provide better bus services for much cheaper outlay?  The 539 timetable is nothing special, and could do with more capacity and speed.  Compared to the cost of acquiring new rollingstock sufficient to run an attractive timetable, I think it is a much more efficient option which can be implemented much more quickly.

Again time to bust a bubble,  There are avaliable a number of 2000 class units that could be used for such a service as a trial, the heritage units, a three car set, the ARHS units presently sitting at Rosewood unused, a two car set and also another pair stored at Redbank which are more than capable of being returned to service for a trial service.  This would give two sets and a spare.
There is also a further alternative that would be possible although the running times would be slower than that for the 2000's that is a 1720 running a three or four car set of older Lander sitting cars and a power car running a through service between Helidon and Roma Street.
Now that the highly misinformed discussion regarding rollingstock for an intrim trial service is resolved and we have let the hot air out of that bubble lets get to the real point of the argument, the Government would rather use the train paths for the Grandchester - Laidley section for their coal services and has no intention of spending money that might provide or encourage the usage of passenger services that would then in turn require more money to operate despite their being an obligation for gobvernment to provide such services.

[somebody]

Reality check guys.  We don't have DEMUs or DMUs suitable for this sort of operation, and they won't be coming in a hurry even if they were oredered. 

Why would you introduce a new type into the fleet when you could just provide better bus services for much cheaper outlay?  The 539 timetable is nothing special, and could do with more capacity and speed.  Compared to the cost of acquiring new rollingstock sufficient to run an attractive timetable, I think it is a much more efficient option which can be implemented much more quickly.

Again time to bust a bubble,  There are avaliable a number of 2000 class units that could be used for such a service as a trial, the heritage units, a three car set, the ARHS units presently sitting at Rosewood unused, a two car set and also another pair stored at Redbank which are more than capable of being returned to service for a trial service.  This would give two sets and a spare.
There is also a further alternative that would be possible although the running times would be slower than that for the 2000's that is a 1720 running a three or four car set of older Lander sitting cars and a power car running a through service between Helidon and Roma Street.
Now that the highly misinformed discussion regarding rollingstock for an intrim trial service is resolved and we have let the hot air out of that bubble lets get to the real point of the argument, the Government would rather use the train paths for the Grandchester - Laidley section for their coal services and has no intention of spending money that might provide or encourage the usage of passenger services that would then in turn require more money to operate despite their being an obligation for gobvernment to provide such services.

What is the reliability of these units?  Are they to be Rosewood-Helidon shuttles, or something else?  If one breaks down in peak hour, what is the plan?  Heritage trains are fun for some people on weekends, but I expect there to be a lot of reluctance to running them in peak hour, particularly east of Ipswich.

[Gazza]

Sorry, But I think it's a joke to suggest that an old train will win any more passengers than the current bus (Train foamers being the exception)

The current bus timetable doesn't even meet every Rosewood train, how about fixing that up before spending money switching to trains?

[mufreight]

Reality check guys.  We don't have DEMUs or DMUs suitable for this sort of operation, and they won't be coming in a hurry even if they were oredered. 

Why would you introduce a new type into the fleet when you could just provide better bus services for much cheaper outlay?  The 539 timetable is nothing special, and could do with more capacity and speed.  Compared to the cost of acquiring new rollingstock sufficient to run an attractive timetable, I think it is a much more efficient option which can be implemented much more quickly.

Again time to bust a bubble,  There are avaliable a number of 2000 class units that could be used for such a service as a trial, the heritage units, a three car set, the ARHS units presently sitting at Rosewood unused, a two car set and also another pair stored at Redbank which are more than capable of being returned to service for a trial service.  This would give two sets and a spare.
There is also a further alternative that would be possible although the running times would be slower than that for the 2000's that is a 1720 running a three or four car set of older Lander sitting cars and a power car running a through service between Helidon and Roma Street.
Now that the highly misinformed discussion regarding rollingstock for an intrim trial service is resolved and we have let the hot air out of that bubble lets get to the real point of the argument, the Government would rather use the train paths for the Grandchester - Laidley section for their coal services and has no intention of spending money that might provide or encourage the usage of passenger services that would then in turn require more money to operate despite their being an obligation for gobvernment to provide such services.

What is the reliability of these units?  Are they to be Rosewood-Helidon shuttles, or something else?  If one breaks down in peak hour, what is the plan?  Heritage trains are fun for some people on weekends, but I expect there to be a lot of reluctance to running them in peak hour, particularly east of Ipswich.

The 2000's are relatively simple robust units, the heritage units have been well maintained and in a good condition, the ARHS units at Rosewood could be readily brought up to scratch to provide reliable service probably only needing a comprehensive service.
It would seem from a number of the posts in this thread that there are many who unfortunately instinctively seek reasons not to do something rather than solutions that would provide better levels of service for commuters generally.

[somebody]

Well, there are significantly higher priorities at present.  Reducing or removing the interchange required for Rosewood would be a significant positive, and also allow a half hourly service with no extra crews off peak, the way I read it.

[Gazza]

It would seem from a number of the posts in this thread that there are many who unfortunately instinctively seek reasons not to do something rather than solutions that would provide better levels of service for commuters generally.

There are 101 things they could do to provide a better level of service to commuters across the network, so much to be sorted out.
I don't see how changing a bus to a train is an improvement in mobility, and why this should be taking priority.
Why wouldn't it work to just change the timetable so it meets every train, and get rid of pathetic things like only a couple of return services on weekends?
Nitty gritty like people prefering a train to a bus. and using that as a means to boost patronage is kind of pointless if its such a low base to begin with.

[#Metro]

I don't see how changing a bus to a train is an improvement in mobility, and why this should be taking priority.

+1

The problem with the "but people prefer trains" argument is that this is the "Ferrari is better" argument. I can show that for almost all criteria that Ferrari is better than your standard boring car. Except on price, and that matters a lot.

[#Metro]

What mobility means:

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5958.0

* Speed (am I wasting my time in congestion? Is it slow? Would it be faster if I drove my car or rode my bicycle?)
* Frequency (will it take half an hour before it turns up?)
* Scope of hours (will services die immediately after peak hour is finished, will I be stranded if I stay back at work late?)
* Interconnectedness (will I be able to get a connecting service if the service is not door to door?)
* Coverage (If I don't own a car, will this service get me there?)

[colinw]

I think you guys may be looking at this the wrong way.

The problem is that the bus services that have run since 1993 are NOT an improvement in mobility, and actually represent a significant downgrade in service standard. They do not provide a service that is more frequent, faster, more comfortable or more reliable than the railcars that preceded them.  And I am talking from experience, as a frequent user of the Lockyer valley services up to the mid '90s.

The reason why a bus doesn't cut it for this route is clear if you look at a map.

The development west of Ipswich was triggered by the construction of the rail line to Toowoomba in the 1860s, and the major population centres are strung out directly along the rail line.  The most direct route between Rosewood, Grandchester, Laidley, Forest Hill & Gatton is the rail line, even with the single track section over the range.

The roads that connect those same towns are not as direct, and are all secondary roads.  For example going west, in the time it takes a bus to get out of Laidley and on to the Forest Hill road, a railcar would have accelerated away and be well on its way to Forest Hill.  About the only section where the road does better is from Grandchester to Laidley, but even then it is a fairly slow, windy & steep road.

Having used these services before & after bus substitution, I can assure you that the rail service was by far the more comfortable & reliable of the two, and significantly faster than can be achieved by the bus.  It does not surprise me that patronage fell away after 1993, to the point that beyond Gatton to Helidon is down to a single token bus per day.

Using the Warrego Highway is not a viable alternative, as it runs well to the north of the main population centres.  It would be very difficult to provide a sensible service to Laidley, Forrest Hill & Gatton using the highway. So you are stuck with using the "B" roads, over which the rail had a time advantage even with 80 km/h limited 2000 class railcars.   Upgrade the bus service as much as you like, and you're still not going to make it any faster on those secondary roads, and will still have the time penalty of the change at Rosewood unless you run your buses from Ipswich and shadow the rail service with a parallel bus service.

Now, the way population is taking off along the highway at places like Plainland, I think the time will come when a Gatton via Warrego Highway bus service will be necessary, but that is an entirely different route to the rail line and would only share a common terminus.

[somebody]

Electric Rail to Granchester with bus express Ipswich-Laidley (via Warrego) then all stops to Helidon?  Maybe Riverview-Laidley would be faster, but missing Ipswich is probably a bad idea.

Just putting it out there.