Management of the Inland Rail project by the Australian Rail Track Corporation and the Commonwealth Government Submission by Peter Egan Term of Reference b. route planning and selection processes Reduction in scope over time The INLAND RAIL IMPLEMENTATION GROUP Report to the Australian Government 2015 advises: THE IDEA FOR AN INLAND RAILWAY The idea for extending the Australian rail network to provide an inland railway connecting Brisbane to the southern and western states has been around for at least one hundred years. For example, in 1915, the then Prime Minister Andrew Fisher proposed a ‘Strategic Railway’ primarily for defence purposes. For example, in 1979, it was suggested that there was a need for an inland rail line connecting Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide with the aim of providing a rail system directly linking the five mainland state capitals (which, at the time, was home to 60% of Australia’s population). Subsequently, in 1986, a Melbourne–Parkes–Brisbane rail route was suggested along with a Queensland Government proposal for a new rail tunnel under the Toowoomba Range to service coal exports (which should be wide enough for standard gauge line and high enough for double-stacking). Until the 1980s, the concept was a “strategic railway” (passenger and freight at the time) to integrate the Australian economy. This was downgraded in the 1980s to freight line serving a limited freight market along an inland route that included 1200 km of existing rail corridors. Passenger rail would need considerable technology development to respond to the rise of private automobiles and aircraft. This development has now occurred, but its capabilities has not been considered for Inland Rail. The INLAND RAIL IMPLEMENTATION GROUP Report 2015 (IRIG report) did include an assessment of the following options – “progressive road upgrades, upgrading the existing east coast railway and an inland railway” (see report extract below). Airfreight was also considered. STRATEGIC OPTIONS ASSESSMENT The Implementation Group also considered the strategic options assessment set out in ARTC’s 2015 Programme Business Case as only one additional factor in guiding its consideration of whether or not Inland Rail would be the optimal solution to address the eastern Australian freight challenge. Options assessed by the Programme Business Case included progressive road upgrades, upgrading the existing east coast railway and an inland railway. These options were subjected to a rigorous assessment consistent with Infrastructure Australia’s Reform and Investment Framework Guidelines (see Chapter 4 of the business case for detailed information). The assessment was conducted against seven equally weighted criteria: i. capacity to serve east coast future inter-capital regional/bulk freight market needs; ii. foster economic growth through improved freight productivity and service quality (including improved reliability and resilience); iii. optimise environmental outcomes; iv. alleviate urban constraints; v. enable regional development; vi. ease of implementation; and vii. cost-effectiveness. THE ECONOMICS OF INLAND RAIL The economic analysis contained within the Inland Rail business case compares a scenario where there is an Inland Railway, to one where road and rail freight would use the existing roads and coastal railway, over a fifty-year period (2025-75). FREIGHT PRODUCTIVITY AND NATIONAL WEALTH The Melbourne to Brisbane transport corridor supports the most significant population, employment and economic areas in Australia and contributes billions of dollars in exports annually. The east coast of Australia comprises 18 million residents, nine million jobs and contributes $1.1 trillion in gross state product each year. Export trade through east coast ports is estimated to contribute approximately $260 billion in exports annually. The key freight sectors underpinning resources, jobs and export markets for the east coast are also nationally significant, comprising more than 80% of total interstate freight in Australia. Agricultural and other goods travelling within the corridor are valued at $34 billion per annum, and thermal coal resources in southern Queensland are about 8.4 billion tonnes and contribute up to $700 million in revenue annually. Strong population growth projections along the east coast are underscored by the increasing concentration of population in the area. Forecasts indicate that the region’s share of the total population will increase from 81% in 2008 to 90% by 2050. The population centres that would be served by an inland railway are likewise forecast to experience significant population growth over the 20 years from 2006. Melbourne is forecast to grow by 40% to a population of around 5.04 million, Sydney by 31% to around 5.4 million and Brisbane by 52% to around 2.7 million.55 Overall, the eastern Australian population is forecast to increase by 60% over the next 40 years. As we see above, the IRIG Report noted the size of the east coast market available for service, but chose to focus Inland Rail on only a small portion of it. Melbourne-Brisbane represents 20% of the east coast freight task. The other 80% is Melbourne-Sydney and Sydney-Brisbane. Consideration was not given to Inland Rail serving this 80%. Regional development criteria The criteria “enable regional development” was interpreted as ‘usable for regional freight’. Induced freight traffic was considered, but not regional development which requires supporting infrastructure and services including all government services. While the community needs many government services, enabling specialised land use through provision of natural monopoly transport infrastructure is a prerequisite for economic activity. Whether it likes it or not, government is a major partner in every property development as the transport infrastructure (including utilities) must come before the ongoing economic activity. Taxation is a return to government for services and supporting infrastructure that aid private economic and social activity. According to property industry research, by the time of building completion, and before building use starts, actual development of a dwelling in a metropolitan area, yields an average of $250,000 in Commonwealth and state taxes including income tax, GST and property taxes. Perhaps the yield in regional areas is two-thirds this amount. Commercial/industrial buildings will have a higher tax yield. By seeing Inland Rail in narrow freight terms, the Commonwealth has chosen not to facilitate regional development in any significant way with this project. If regional development had been the goal, studies would have focused on the services and supporting infrastructure necessary to support regional development – which would include fast regional passenger services as road travel is too slow and air travel too expensive and infrequent for journeys under 500 km. A regional development goal would require an Inland Rail route to pass near the towns and cities west of Brisbane and Sydney and North of Melbourne. It should also pass near similar communities between Melbourne and Adelaide. A route for Inland Rail that would support regional development is presented in Appendix A. The services it could provide are presented in Appendix B. The market it would serve is presented in Appendix C. A glimmer of hope in the Inland Rail project for regional development in Australia The 2003 Queensland 200 km/h alignment between Brisbane and Toowoomba (Gowrie to Grandchester section) envisaged passenger services that would bring Toowoomba within the daily travel time budget for working in Brisbane. The Brisbane-Toowoomba Inland Rail route has retained the 200 km/h alignment due property purchases already made, and infrastructure costs similar to an alignment for half that speed. Track/passenger train classes 200 km/h is a ‘medium’ speed class of intercity passenger train. 160 km/h is ‘standard’ class an example of which is the NSW XPT train which was tested to 187 km/h on the Central Coast. For comparison, the NSW Waratah fleet is capable of 130 km/h and perhaps higher. Given that an inland Brisbane-Sydney route is about 1100 km, and Sydney-Melbourne 900 km, 200 km/h gives the promise of 6-hour Sydney-Brisbane and 5-hour Sydney-Melbourne passenger journeys. Along a railway line consistently offering such speeds, these journey times place cities and towns less than three hours travel time to a major city – generally sufficient for services needed monthly or less regular. The times are sufficient to attract many people with city jobs to live in regional areas. Its terrain makes Brisbane-Toowoomba by far the most expensive section of the corridor. Thus, Queensland has kept alive the possibility of a ‘strategic’ railway supporting regional development. Inland Rail specification drove detailed route selection At the national level, with a focus purely on freight, the primary specification adopted for Inland Rail became a less than 24-hour journey between Melbourne and Brisbane for the ‘intermodal reference train’ – an average speed under 75 km/h. Other key specification includes: a) 2.0 kW/tonne power/weight ratio for reference train; b) 1,800 m trains (initially, later 3,600 metres) of double-stacked containers to maximise freight volumes for a single-track line; c) new structures and foundations designed for 30 tonne axle load; d) 25 tonne axle load @ 80 km/h; e) 21 tonne axle load @ 115 km/h reducing to 80 km/h in mountainous terrain; The intent of the Inland Rail specification, particularly items a) and b), is to maximise the cost advantage, particularly in fuel and labour, over trucks for the Melbourne-Brisbane journey while being competitive with service frequency/journey time. These items have pushed the route onto floodplains with the consequent environmental changes, possibly higher construction costs and higher flood related maintenance and repair costs. A limited number of passenger trains, similar to the tourist trains operated by Journey Beyond Rail Expeditions (formally Great Southern Rail), would use the line operating at freight train speeds. Allowable speed in curves reduces with weight – thus items d) and e). All wagons have a width close to the maximum allowed width. Additional weight usually raises the centre of gravity (CoG) of the wagon. A higher centre of gravity results in a higher overturning moment (force by distance) from speed in a curve that is resisted by the constant gravity moment. For safety, the ‘raw’ overturning moment is not allowed to exceed one-third the gravity moment due to other factors that can increase the overturning moment. Thus, if CoG is raised, the allowed speed in a curve is lowered. In mountainous terrain, where tighter curves are used to reduce construction costs, a consequent lower train speed must be adopted. Effect of single-track operation As the allowable Inland Rail freight train length will allow a single track to meet forecast demand for Melbourne-Brisbane freight, the cost of second track has been avoided. However, the cost of an additional track is far below the cost of an initial track. The capacity and service value of an additional track far exceeds a single track and is worthwhile if additional services are enabled by the second track and they have appropriate economic value. Double-track rail allows four freight train services per hour travelling at the same speed for many hours without stopping. Single-track capacity is partially limited by the tolerance of train operators to stopping regularly for trains passing in the other direction. One train per hour in each direction would require a train to stop every 30 minutes -generally, an unacceptable service. Two-hourly freight train services on a single-track would pass each other hourly. With single-track operation of any significant frequency, trains are essentially forced to travel at similar speeds to the slowest freight train. Differential train speeds Differential train speeds reduce the capacity of double-track operations. A reasonable regional passenger service for regional development in inland Australia is one 200 km/h train per hour on a double-track line. It would pass a two-hourly freight train travelling in the same direction every hour, which would require the freight train to stop hourly on a siding. Given the foreseeable freight demand, a double-track line with consistent 200 km/h capability would enable a passenger service of sufficient quality to support significant growth in regional Australia if Sydney was also served. Low power/weight ratio The low 2.0 kW/tonne power/weight specification is intended to reduce the number and size of locomotives required for a given freight volume. The low power/weight ratio of freight trains means they suffer significant speed loss for grades over 1%. Thus, a low power/weight ratio specification, combined with a 24-hour journey time, pushes route selection towards very flat terrain such as flood plains (to avoid cut and fill earthworks) where fuel (energy) use is also very low. By way of comparison, an intercity passenger train suitable for 200 km/h operation (as allowed for in the alignment west of Brisbane) is the 7-carriage version of the new German ICE4 by Siemens/Bomdardier. It has a top speed of 230 km/h, a weight of 455 tonnes, a length of 202 metres, 2-class seating for 456 passengers, a restaurant car and required toilet facilities. The average loaded train axle weight is 16.25 tonne – well under Inland Rail allowance. It’s electric motors output is 4950 kW – 412.5 kW for each of 12 motors. The power/weight ratio is thus 10.9:1. To reach the top speed, the gearing of the ICE4 is high – giving the train a low acceleration of 0.55 m/s.s (the single-deck Sydney Metro train has an acceleration of 1.2 m/s.s – typical maximum for comfort. The train will take 2 minutes to reach 200 km/h. With the top-speed reduced to 200 km/h, the gearing can be reduced for an acceleration increase to 0.7 m/s.s and 200 km/h reached in 1.5 minutes. Electric trains generally have single gear transmissions for reliability contributions to low acceleration. The acceleration of a freight train with a top speed of 115 km/h will be about one-third that of an ICE4 – 0.2 m/s.s, taking about 3 minutes to reach top speed – effectively twice as long to reach half the speed.