Inland Rail Project terminated

[old man emu]

The Federal Government has just announced that work on the inland rail route between Melbourne and Brisbane will cease when the track reaches Parkes in Central NSW. The given reason is that to complete the trtack from Parkes to Brisbane would cost $46 billion dollars. The purpose of the route was to reduce reliance on road transport between Queensland and Victoria along the Newell Highway which is the inland route.

 

Already millions have been spent on preliminary geophysical investigations along the proposed route north of Parkes. Rural properties have been purchased. The Gilgandra Shire created a residential estate will all the road and water infrastructure for the building of housing to rent to the construction workers employed on the nearby section. Once the work was completed those houses would be placed on the public market for sale. However, demand for housing follows demand for employment, and there is not much locally.

 

There was nothing wrong with the concept of a dedicated freight line between these two States. The problem, no doubt, is that the ability to generate the funding for the project, amongst all the other demands on government, is beyond the capacity of a Nation with such a small population compared to its area. Perhaps if our natural resources had not been sold off at bargain basement prices, or tax concessions to foreign companies were curtailed, the Government might be able to provide the funds to finance the many demands made of it.

 

Here's a link to the Inland Rail website: https://inlandrail.com.au/

[nomadpete]

sad.

We need the infrastructure.

 

 

[facthunter]

Barnaby will be disappointed. He Purchased Land . Railways have a record of not Paying for themselves In this country. Levels of utilisation would need to be far above what it is.   There's a lot of Maintenance on Railway Lines. and rolling stock. Nev

[Siso]

Maybe we should put some of the global warming budget into it. Trains are efficient when you work out the tonnes of freight/ litre of fuel.

[old man emu]

25 minutes ago, Siso said:

Trains are efficient when you work out the tonnes of freight/ litre of fuel.

That may be correct, but building the infrastructure to run them on is where the cost is. Also, railways need a higher level of maintenance than roads. Trains don't like potholes and other sorts of irregularities that trucks can accept from the roads they travel over.

[facthunter]

Rail tracks and  rolling stock have to be safe OR nothing gets there. The SHOW goes off the rails. Nev

[nomadpete]

21 hours ago, facthunter said:

There's a lot of Maintenance on Railway Lines. and rolling stock. Nev

Yeah, unlike like highway maintenance -  that's an investment!

 

[nomadpete]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

That may be correct, but building the infrastructure to run them on is where the cost is.

As would apply if any government was so wasteful as to build a brand new straight, high speed expressway between capital cities.... from scratch.

 

Any greenfield project can be expected to cost a lot to do the groundwork.

[facthunter]

One BIG truck does more damage than hundreds of Lighter vehicles. Nev

[old man emu]

Short road trains are very commonly seen running up and down the Newell. I suppose that with a train of two trailers at least the rod is spared the weight of one prime mover.

[facthunter]

 You are assuming the Weight is Mostly the Prime Mover. Braking  causes the Most severe road surface damage Plus tree roots and flood water saturation of the soil under the road.. We move stuff over long distances Here so have to bear the  extra costs (of everything) when we live in remot(er) areas... Nev