MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE
INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 ISBN: 978-0-6487065-0-2
© 2020 Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC). This document is uncontrolled when printed.
ARTC makes no representation or warranty and assumes no duty of care or other responsibility to any party as to the completeness, accuracy or suitability of the information contained in the GIS maps used in this publication. The GIS maps have been prepared from material provided to ARTC by an external source and ARTC has not taken any steps to verify the completeness, accuracy or suitability of that material.
ARTC will not be responsible for any loss or damage suffered as a result of any person whatsoever placing reliance upon the information contained within the GIS maps in this publication.
31 December 2020 Inland Rail acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the land on which we work and pay our respects to the Elders past, present and emerging. Contents Contents
Introduction 03 Consultation on route options 2016–2020 36 Consultation on route options 2016–2020 38 Inland Rail Program overview and development 04 Number of consultation interactions by State 2016–2019 40 Inland Rail: Program overview 05 Meeting Australia’s freight challenge 07 Inland Rail route selection summaries 43 Connecting Melbourne, Brisbane and the rest of Australia 10 Overview 44 The development of Inland Rail 12 Melbourne to Illabo 45 The development of Inland Rail post IRIG 16 Illabo to Stockinbingal 49 Finalising the Inland Rail route: 2019 onwards 17 Stockinbingal to Narromine 55 Acknowledging the significant contributors and partners 19 Narromine to Narrabri 58 Narrabri to North Star 76 Background and discussion 20 North Star to Gowrie 78 Why transit time and distance are critical to route selection 21 Gowrie to Kagaru 96 Key technical characteristics supporting the Service Offering 24 Kagaru to Acacia Ridge and Bromelton 100
Inland Rail: Early origins 25 Appendices 102 North-South Rail Corridor Study 2006 26 A01 – N2N Route Option Analysis: Economic cost of going via Coonamble 103 Inland Rail Alignment Study (IRAS) 2010 28 A02 – Analysis of freight volumes on the Coonamble line 105 Inland Rail Implementation Group (IRIG) 2015 30 A03 – Potential freight savings from upgrading the Coonamble line 107 Inland Rail route development since 2016 32 A04 – Analysis of routes via Warwick 109 Factors affecting route selection since 2016 34 A05 – Glossary of Terms 117 Process for assessing route options leading to a final rail corridor 35 A06 – Publicly available reports referenced throughout this document 119 Route status as at December 2020 – Victoria and New South Wales 36 Route status as at December 2020 – Queensland 37 Inland Rail office locations 121 Introduction
This document summarises decisions that have informed the current route for Inland Rail between Melbourne and Brisbane via regional Victoria, New South Wales and southeast Queensland. This document is intended to provide the reader with an understanding of these decisions and the reasoning behind them.
The information provided in this document is primarily drawn from information available on the Inland Rail website and other publicly accessible sources. The information relating to assessment of the freight volumes on the Coonamble line, and the potential for reduced operating costs, that appears in Appendix 1–3 (pages 103 to 108) of this document have been prepared by the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) specifically for this document.
The Australian Government is delivering Inland Rail through ARTC, in partnership with the private sector.
PAGE 2 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Introduction
Inland Rail has undergone a progressive route development and selection process since 2006, each stage refining the focus on what is required to deliver the Inland Rail project.
The Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail Alignment Study (IRAS 2010) effectively As at 1 December 2020, the planned Inland Rail route is approximately established the Inland Rail route that has undergone some relatively minor 1,715 kilometres (km) between Melbourne and Brisbane. changes in the years since. In developing IRAS 2010, ARTC was assisted by a The Inland Rail route comprises: number of this country's leading business and engineering consultancies. 1,087km of track upgrades, enhancements or construction of new track within A critical component in developing the route in 2010 was work undertaken existing rail corridors (brownfield) to understand the factors that freight firms and customers took into account when determining whether to send freight by road, rail or sea. These factors of 628km of track in new rail corridors (greenfield). price, reliability, availability and transit time were subsequently reaffirmed in What this means is that along the entire route, track upgrades or enhancements or 2014 by ARTC following consultation with freight forwarders, rail operators and use of existing rail corridors account for 63% of the route. customers, including supermarkets and others requiring timely transportation of manufactured and packaged goods. As a result of this consultation, ARTC The longest section requiring a new rail corridor, and offering the greatest formalised the Inland Rail Service Offering. When fully operational, Inland Rail will opportunity to save time and distance lies between Narromine and Narrabri in effectively and measurably enhance the national supply chain. New South Wales (306km). The section between the NSW/QLD border and Gowrie in Queensland (216km) requires 145km of new rail corridor and utilises 71km of The Inland Rail Service Offering provides for a transit time between Melbourne existing rail corridor within which Inland Rail will be constructed. and Brisbane of less than 24 hours for the “Inland Rail intermodal reference train” (which is a freight train up to 1,800m in length, 40% double-stacked) while The route development process is now reaching its later stages as the rail design is achieving 98% reliability and providing for freight availability when the market progressed and planning approvals are progressively obtained for each component requires at a cost that is competitive with road. section in the Inland Rail Program. To be as competitive as possible with road, it is desirable that the Melbourne to This document provides a general overview of the key reports and decisions that Brisbane transit time for express trains should allow for freight delivery in a time shaped the development of Inland Rail between 2006 and late 2019. It is a synthesis as close to road transit time as feasible. of information that is largely publicly available in a number of reports. The Inland Rail Service Offering can only be achieved by routing Inland Rail across Further information on Inland Rail and each section (or project) can be found at significant sections of greenfield areas where there is currently no existing rail line inlandrail.com.au or rail corridor. A short glossary of terms is included at the end of this document together with a list of publicly available documents related to the development of the Inland Rail route.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 3 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Inland Rail Program
Overview and development
PAGE 4 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Inland Rail: Program overview
Listed below are the 13 sections (or projects) that collectively comprise the Inland Rail Program. Each section is defined geographically and commonly identified by the accompanying acronym.
T2A: Tottenham (Melbourne) to Albury The three projects between Gowrie and Kagaru are sometimes collectively referred to as G2K. They are largely within protected transport corridors and are to be delivered by a single A2I: Albury to Illabo Public Private Partnership. I2S: Illabo to Stockinbingal The Inland Rail route as at December 2020 is shown in the map on page 6. This map illustrates S2P: Stockinbingal to Parkes the route in its general location. Specific section alignments may vary slightly due to the narrowing of areas of investigation within those sections. P2N: Parkes to Narromine N2N: Narromine to Narrabri N2NS: Narrabri to North Star NS2B: North Star to New South Wales / Queensland Border B2G: New South Wales / Queensland Border to Gowrie G2H: Gowrie to Helidon H2C: Helidon to Calvert C2K: Calvert to Kagaru K2ARB: Kagaru to Acacia Ridge (Brisbane) and Bromelton
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 5 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 DARWIN
KATHERINE
TENNANT CREEK NT
ALICE SPRINGS
N
BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ALIGNMENT MAP WA HELIDON 4 GOWRIE CALVERT 01 KAGARU TO ACACIA RIDGE AND BROMELTON 07 NARRABRI TO NORTH STAR 3 ACACIA RIDGE 2 1KAGARU Comprises 49km of existing track. Comprises 182.8km of upgraded track and 1.7km of new 5 GRANDCHESTER track in new greenfield corridor. NSW/QLD BROMELTON Clearances will be increased to allow for BORDER double-stacked container trains. This track will be upgraded to allow Inland Rail traffic to GOONDIWINDI INGLEWOOD travel at mainline speed. 6 YELARBON 02 CALVERT TO KAGARU 08 NARROMINE TO NARRABRI NORTH Comprises 53km of new dual gauge track in the NSW/QLD BORDER STAR protected Southern Freight Rail Corridor. Comprises 306km of new track in new greenfield corridor. MOREE 7 Using 1.1km of tunnelling this section will connect This new track will reduce the overall journey time and Inland Rail with the Sydney to Brisbane coastal line. complete one of the missing links between Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane. 03 HELIDON TO CALVERT NARRABRI 09 PARKES TO NARROMINE Comprises 47km of new dual gauge track KALGOORLIE TARCOOLA predominantly within the Gowrie to Grandchester Comprises 98.4km of existing track and 5.3km of new 8 protected corridor. track in a new greenfield corridor. This track will cross the Lockyer Valley floodplain This track will be upgraded to improve transit times. and the Little Liverpool Range with a 1.1km tunnel. GILGANDRA 10 STOCKINBINGAL TO PARKES 04 GOWRIE TO HELIDON Comprises 170.3km of existing track. Inland Rail will NARROMINE Comprises 28km of new dual gauge track in the benefit from the track upgrades ARTC has already completed to this section. Additional works will be PERTH DUBBO Gowrie to Grandchester protected corridor. undertaken to allow for double-stacked trains. 9 This route will traverse the steep terrain of the EAST/WES T LINE Toowoomba Range and will include a 6.4km tunnel. 11 ILLABO TO STOCKINBINGAL PARKES NEWCASTLE 05 NSW/QLD BORDER TO GOWRIE* Comprises 37km of new track. 10 Comprises 207km of new dual gauge track The route bypasses the winding section of track – 138km in new greenfield corridors and 69km called the Bethungra Spiral. SYDNEY within existing corridors just north of the NSW/QLD 12 ALBURY (VIC/NSW) BORDER TO ILLABO border near Yelarbon, to Gowrie Junction, north- STOCKINBINGAL west of Toowoomba. Comprises 185km of existing track. 11 Clearances will be increased to allow for ADELAIDE JUNEE ILLABO 06 NORTH STAR TO NSW/QLD BORDER* WAGGA WAGGA double-stacked container trains. Comprises 39km of new track, using 27km of 12 CANBERRA existing rail corridor. 13 TOTTENHAM TO ALBURY (VIC/NSW BORDER) This will complete one of the key missing links of Comprises 305km of existing track. ALBURY track between NSW and QLD, using disused rail Clearances will be increased to allow for WODONGA corridor or new track to connect to the operating line double-stacked container trains. running to Yelarbon. 13 VIC/NSW BORDER SEYMOUR LEGEND BEVERIDGE TOTTENHAM *Note: The Border to Gowrie and North Star to Border projects have their 'project boundary' at a point 9km north of the border in southern Queensland where a new greenfield section ties into MELBOURNE Alignment the existing QR rail line. The North Star to Border project is responsible for the bridge required to cross the Macintyre River, so the best project boundary interface is where the required new ARTC rail network line ties into the existing QR line which will be upgraded to meet Inland Rail mainline standards. Existing rail This is important to note as in several materials the quoted project distances are for planning approval purposes as these recognise the respective state based jurisdictions, resulting in a PAGE 6 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006Project–2020 boundaries Border to Gowrie project distance of 216km and 30km for the North Star to Border project. 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Meeting Australia’s freight challenge 17.9 mt
Australia faces increasing TOTAL FREIGHT 10.5 mt pressure to efficiently, effectively DEMAND 2015–2050 and safely transport ever increasing volumes of freight, especially between our major 6.7 mt cities. The east coast comprises 18 million residents (79% of
Australia’s total population) and WITH INLAND RAIL 2050 export trade through east coast 2030 2015 ports is estimated to contribute approximately $260 billion The 2015 Inland Rail Business Case identified the following key deficiencies in existing freight transport annually1. The growing freight networks with flow-on impacts to freight supply chains and the broader community. task is summarised in Capacity: Existing infrastructure between Social and environment: The continued reliance the diagram on this page. Melbourne and Brisbane has insufficient capacity on road for freight transport will result in to meet future freight demand. increasing safety, environmental and community impacts with associated costs to the economy. Productivity: Current north–south freight infrastructure (road and rail) is constrained by Regional and growth: Existing north–south both geography (old rail lines with numerous freight infrastructure is impacting access to curves and inability to take double-stacked freight efficient supply chain networks for regional
1 Inland Rail Programme trains) and the priority given to passenger rail producers and industries, inhibiting productivity Business Case 2015, pages 59–60 services (particularly through the greater Sydney and economic growth. urban area where curfews are in place on freight Resilience: Lack of resilience on existing trains during peak commuting hours). north–south freight infrastructure exposes supply chains to disruptions and greater unreliability.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 7 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-00020-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Meeting Australia’s freight challenge
Inland Rail will provide the catalyst for moving freight from road to rail by delivering a greater supply of faster, more reliable rail freight MOVING FREIGHT WITHOUT paths that offer significantly lower operating costs than either road INLAND RAIL transport or existing rail via the coastal route. Inland Rail will encourage and facilitate the shift of more freight from road to rail. This modal shift will help to significantly reduce RAIL RAIL ROAD RAIL the economic cost to Australia from road congestion, forecast to be 30% ROAD 37% as much as $37 billion a year by 2030.1 58% 42% ROAD 63% The accompanying graphics on this page illustrate the difference 70% that Inland Rail will make.
2015 2030 2050
MOVING FREIGHT WITH INLAND RAIL
ROAD 38% RAIL ROAD RAIL 1 Traffic and congestion cost trends RAIL 30% 46% 62% for Australian capital cities, Bureau of 54% Infrastructure, Transport and Regional ROAD Economics 2015 70%
2015 2030 2050
PAGE PAGE 8 8 | | MELBOURNE MELBOURNE TO TO BRISBANE BRISBANE INLAND INLAND RAIL RAIL ROUTE ROUTE HISTORY HISTORY 2006 2006–2020–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Meeting Australia’s freight challenge
An efficient freight transport system in MOVING FREIGHT FOR DOMESTIC AND EXPORT MARKETS the east coast domestic and export markets is critical to Australia’s future prosperity. The accompanying graphic DOMESTIC illustrates the general nature of freight that will be carried by Inland Rail once it INTERCAPITAL is operational, as well as the proportions destined for domestic and export markets. COAL AND MINERALS Almost 70% of freight carried on Inland Rail is destined for domestic markets with the majority comprising inter-capital non-bulk freight such as white goods and beverages. Approximately 70% of T R Australia’s agricultural production is D exported and 30% consumed domestically.1 O 25% O P
By providing greater flexibility across M X
E
multiple supply chains, Inland Rail will E
enhance both national productivity and 9% 66% S
regional economies as businesses become T I more competitive through a greater ability C to deliver products to more markets faster AGRICULTURE and at lower cost.
Freight types and percentages forecast at 2050 on Melbourne to Brisbane route. Percentages are calculated from the net 1 Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource tonne km of freight forecast in Economics and Sciences (ABARES) forecast for Figure 7.3 in the 2015 Inland 2019–20 agricultural production Rail Business Case (page 30).
MELBOURNEMELBOURNE TO TO BRISBANE BRISBANE INLAND INLAND RAIL RAIL ROUTE ROUTE HISTORY HISTORY 2006 2006––20202020 | | PAGE PAGE 9 9 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-00020-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Connecting Melbourne, Brisbane and the rest of Australia
Inland Rail is a once-in-a-generation project that will complete the backbone of the national freight rail network, enabling Australia to have world-class supply chains and meet the objectives of the 2015 Inland Rail Business Case. To achieve these objectives Inland Rail has to meet the driving needs of customers for a line that enables trains to carry freight between Melbourne and Brisbane: in a comparable timeframe to that achieved by trucks at less cost than provided by trucks with reliability and predictability comparable to that provided by trucks. The construction of a fast, safe, reliable and connected Inland Rail will benefit not only customers and freight forwarders but also generate social and economic benefits for regional towns, businesses and primary producers. As an efficient supply chain backbone, Inland Rail will enable connections with regional and national rail lines. These connections will reduce costs and provide greater flexibility in the way producers are able to transport goods and freight to markets throughout Australia, including to ports in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia.
PAGE 10 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 DARWIN Connecting Melbourne, KATHERINE Brisbane and the rest of Australia
TENNANT CREEK
ALICE SPRINGS
BRISBANE HELIDON CALVERT GOWRIE ACACIA RIDGE
GRANDCHESTER KAGARU NSW/QLD BROMELTON BORDER GOONDIWINDI INGLEWOOD YELARBON NORTH NSW/QLD BORDER STAR MOREE
NARRABRI KALGOORLIE TARCOOLA
GILGANDRA PERTH NARROMINE DUBBO
EAST/WE ST LINE PARKES NEWCASTLE
N SYDNEY STOCKINBINGAL ADELAIDE JUNEE ILLABO WAGGA WAGGA CANBERRA
ALIGNMENT KEY ALBURY WODONGA
SEYMOUR VIC/NSW BORDER Inland Rail – new track BEVERIDGE TOTTENHAM MELBOURNE Inland Rail – existing track to be upgraded
Dual gauge track
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 11 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002
HOBART The development of Inland Rail 2006–2018
2006 North-South Rail 2010 Inland Rail 2011–2013 Initial 2013 Inland Rail Corridor Study Alignment Study $300m funding Implementation Group allocation established (reported in 2015)
The route selection process The Far Western Sub-Corridor Following the completion of the 2010 In late 2013, the then Deputy began in earnest with the 2006 identified in the North-South Rail IRAS, the Australian Government Prime Minister Warren Truss North-South Rail Corridor Study Corridor Study formed the starting approved an initial $300 million announced the formation of which identified a broad corridor point for the Inland Rail Alignment allocation in the 2011–12 Federal the Inland Rail Implementation for a future Melbourne-Brisbane Study (IRAS) completed in 2010. Budget forward estimates for Inland Group (IRIG), chaired by the Hon railway. Rail pre-construction activities John Anderson AO, with senior The 2010 IRAS analysed a large spanning the 2014/5–2018/9 period. representatives from relevant The study examined four broad number of alternatives within the Infrastructure departments of alternatives between Melbourne Far Western Sub-Corridor. Following the 2013 Federal Australia, Queensland, New South and Brisbane ranging from a far It identified a detailed alignment Election, the incoming Government Wales and Victorian infrastructure western sub-corridor via western that sought to minimise committed to this $300 million departments, and the ARTC CEO. New South Wales through to a construction and operational costs funding, in conjunction with coastal sub-corridor via Sydney and maximise the economic benefit announcements regarding the IRIG was tasked with preparing and the North Coast. – in particular, freight user benefits formation of the Inland Rail a 10-year delivery strategy and flowing from operating cost Implementation Group. business case for Inland Rail. The study identified that a Far savings, time savings and improved Western Sub-Corridor (via Albury The $300 million funded the initial reliability. This drove identification and Parkes) would have the lowest work on Inland Rail through to of key greenfield sections such as capital cost, fastest transit time 2018/19, establishing the basis for Narromine to Narrabri. and the best economic cost-benefit the development of Inland Rail in the performance. lead up to project delivery.
PAGE PAGE 12 12 | | MELBOURNE MELBOURNE TO TO BRISBANE BRISBANE INLAND INLAND RAIL RAIL ROUTE ROUTE HISTORY HISTORY 2006 2006–2020–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 The development of Inland Rail 2006–2018
2014 Inland Rail INLAND RAIL Service Offering formalised SERVICE OFFERING
During 2014, ARTC worked with a Stakeholder Reference Group comprising key representatives from across the transport and logistics industries to understand if the factors affecting the ability of rail to attract freight that were developed as part <24 98% of the 2010 IRAS remained valid. HOURS The Stakeholder Reference Group work validated the work undertaken TRANSIT TIME RELIABILITY PRICE AVAILABILITY in 2010 and culminated in the formal development of the Inland Rail Service Offering. Requires a transit time Requires 98% reliability Requires competitive Requires suitable train between Melbourne and for freight customers. pricing for freight paths at the times that The Service Offering specified the key Brisbane of less than 24 customers. meet the needs of outputs Inland Rail would offer to the hours and an express the market. market – transit time, reliability, pricing capability that is and availability. Achievement of the competitive with road. Service Offering (in particular transit time and reliability) has been a critical consideration in route selection. This is covered in more detail on pages 21–23.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 13 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 The development of Inland Rail 2006–2018
2015 IRIG Report 2015 Inland Rail 2016–17 Federal Budget 2016–17 Market Testing Programme Business for private sector Case involvement
The Inland Rail Implementation The ARTC 2015 Inland Rail In the 2016–17 Federal Budget, the Flowing from the 2016–17 Group (IRIG) Report was delivered Programme Business Case was Australian Government announced Federal Budget announcements, to the Australian Government in the key supporting document for that Inland Rail would be delivered the Department of Finance led August 2015. the IRIG Report. The Business Case through ARTC in partnership with a market testing process in late demonstrated that Inland Rail could the private sector, and that it would 2016 and early 2017 to inform The IRIG Report largely adopted drive a significant shift in rail’s share undertake market testing for private the Australian Government’s the 2010 IRAS recommended of freight transported and also drive sector involvement in the project. consideration of the delivery alignment, with certain variations an increase in the total volume of and financing of Inland Rail. and recommendations for further The Budget allocated an additional freight moved. assessment, as explained later in $593.7 million, as an equity injection The outcomes of the market testing this document. On receiving the IRIG Report, the to ARTC, towards land acquisition, were considered by the Government Australian Government referred the continuation of pre-construction in the identification of a delivery the Business Case to Infrastructure work and due diligence activities. model for Inland Rail in the context Australia for assessment. of the 2017–18 Federal Budget. Following assessment of the Business Case, Infrastructure Australia added Inland Rail to the Australian Infrastructure Priority List as a Priority Project in May 2016.
PAGE PAGE 14 14 | | MELBOURNE MELBOURNE TO TO BRISBANE BRISBANE INLAND INLAND RAIL RAIL ROUTE ROUTE HISTORY HISTORY 2006 2006–2020–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 The development of Inland Rail 2006–2018
2017–18 Federal Budget 2018 Construction commencement
In the 2017–18 Federal Budget, A historic milestone was the Australian Government achieved on 13 December 2018 committed to finance Inland Rail when the Deputy Prime Minister, with a combination of an additional Hon Michael McCormack MP, turned $8.4 billion equity investment in ARTC the ceremonial first sod on the and a Public Private Partnership for Parkes to Narromine (P2N) section the Gowrie to Kagaru section of Inland Rail, accompanied by the in Queensland. ARTC Chairman, ARTC Managing Director and CEO, Inland Rail CEO The 2017–18 Budget allocation and other dignitaries. brought total Australian Government financing of Inland Rail to $9.3 billion. The commencement of construction followed the receipt of planning approvals in September 2018 and the appointment of INLink as construction contractor in October 2018 (INLink is a joint venture between BMD Group and Fulton Hogan).
Parkes community attending the Inland Rail sod turn event on 13 December 2018
MELBOURNEMELBOURNE TO TO BRISBANE BRISBANE INLAND INLAND RAIL RAIL ROUTE ROUTE HISTORY HISTORY 2006 2006––20202020 | PAGE 15 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 PAGE PAGE 16 16 | | MELBOURNE MELBOURNE TO TO BRISBANE BRISBANE INLAND INLAND RAIL RAIL ROUTE ROUTE HISTORY HISTORY 2006 2006–2020–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Finalising the Inland Rail route: 2019 onwards
From a route selection and rail Brownfield projects Greenfield projects corridor determination perspective, Brownfield (or predominantly brownfield) projects Greenfield projects that involve the construction of utilise sections of ARTC’s existing leased network. new track are listed below. These are predominantly Inland Rail sections essentially fall The brownfield projects are: in new corridors but in some cases include new track construction in existing rail corridors (such as North into two categories: Brownfield Tottenham to Albury Star to Border and various sections in Queensland and Greenfield. Albury to Illabo that will utilise sections of Queensland Rail corridor): Stockinbingal to Parkes Illabo to Stockinbingal Parkes to Narromine Narromine to Narrabri Narrabri to North Star North Star to NSW / Queensland Border Kagaru to Acacia Ridge and Bromelton. NSW / Queensland Border to Gowrie The alignment for these brownfield sections is Gowrie to Helidon predominantly settled, by virtue of the fact that these Helidon to Calvert projects use ARTC’s leased network. Any minor deviations or small greenfield sections outside the Calvert to Kagaru. existing corridor (such as the Camurra deviation on For each of these greenfield projects a study area the Narrabri to North Star project) are being finalised was identified, in some cases determined by the through the feasibility design and Environmental Australian Government. The study areas have been Impact Statement (EIS) processes. narrowed to focus areas of investigation (typically While these sections are brownfield, they down to 100–400m width) and a subsequent nonetheless require significant upgrades, and identification of preferred final rail corridors that consequently capital investment, to achieve the will be subject to assessment and approval by higher performance specifications of respective state governments. By December 2020, Inland Rail. preferred final rail corridors have been identified for the Narromine to Narrabri, North Star to Border and Border to Gowrie projects and the three projects between Gowrie and Kagaru.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 17 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Finalising the Inland Rail route: 2019 Onwards
For all projects, technical investigations are accompanied by a consultation process comprising both individual landowner meetings and community information sessions. Ten Community Consultative Committees have been progressively established along the alignment to provide a formal mechanism for input to the process. As at 1 December 2020, there were five Community Consultative Committees in Queensland and five in New South Wales. For each project, the mechanism for final approval of the detailed alignment is the relevant planning approval instrument (which varies from state to state). By December 2020, one section of Inland Rail (Parkes to Narromine) had been constructed and a construction contract had been awarded for a second section (Narrabri to North Star). Environmental Impact Statements had been completed for the Narromine to Narrabri, North Star to Border, Border to Gowrie, and three sections between Gowrie and Kagaru. For greenfield sections, protection of the final rail corridor will flow from the planning approval process, involving the Ministerial project determination in New South Wales, and through a separate gazettal process by the Department of Transport and Main Roads in Queensland.
PAGE 18 | | MELBOURNE MELBOURNE TO TO BRISBANE BRISBANE INLAND INLAND RAIL RAIL ROUTE ROUTE HISTORY HISTORY 2006 2006––20202020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Acknowledging the significant contributors and partners
The alignment Economic, financial and Engineering, design and 2018–2020 Parkes to Narromine professional services: environmental services: construction contractors: development process ACIL Allen AECOM BMD Constructions has been assisted by a (previously ACIL Tasman) Aquenta Fulton Hogan. wide range of professional Deloitte Arup advisors to provide Ernst and Young 2020+ Narrabri to North Star Aurecon (Phase 1) construction contractors: technical analysis and KPMG GHD John Holland support to facilitate PricewaterhouseCoopers Hatch SEE Civil. robust decision making Turner & Townsend Halcrow in alignment and SNC Atkins. Hyder Consulting corridor selection. Jacobs The list on this page is Kellogg Brown Root not exhaustive, however Lycopodium Infrastructure it highlights the principal Mott Macdonald firms engaged to assist Parsons Brinckerhoff ARTC and government SMEC in development for WSP. Inland Rail.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 19 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Background
Discussion
PAGE 20 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Why transit time and distance are critical to route selection
Adopting a route that is as direct as possible has been a critical consideration in route selection. The length of the route and overall transit time between Melbourne and Brisbane drive key economic benefits that underpin the 2015 Inland Rail Programme Business Case.
Calculating transit time Transit time and distance drive operating costs, Lower transit time generates ‘value of time’ which in turn determines the price that Inland savings for freight customers. Train performance (and hence transit time) is Rail can offer against road. calculated using a simulation program that applies This relates to the value placed by freight physics principles to determine train speed. ARUP Reduced transit time drives lower labour costs (as customers on having time sensitive freight used the program RailSys, which is one of the two faster services lower the hourly crew requirements) delivered earlier than delivery times offered by programs most commonly used in the industry. Key and improves rolling stock utilisation (meaning alternative options. parameters used in the modelling include: a smaller rolling stock fleet can service the total Market consultation during the development of demand), significantly reducing the unit cost per Train configuration, including weight, length, the Inland Rail Service Offering highlighted the tonne of freight transported. number of wagon axles and locomotive type need to offer a range of transit times to meet Reduced distance also directly reduces fuel market needs, with a Melbourne to Brisbane Locomotive tractive effort and braking curves consumption and rolling stock maintenance, transit time of under 24 hours for the Inland Rail Tractive effort variance adjustment factor (to which together constitute around 30% of rail reference train necessary to compete with road in account for natural variation in adhesion) operating costs. the time sensitive express market for intercapital city freight. Rolling resistance formula and coefficients Together with improved operating parameters (train length and double stacking), these factors The 2015 Business Case estimated the ‘value of Maximum braking rate drive the cost saving per tonne for moving freight time’ savings represent a further 25% of the total Run time adjustment factor (to account for natural from road to Inland Rail. The 2015 Business Case economic benefits provided by Inland Rail. variation in train driving style) estimated that Inland Rail will offer a price to the The rolling resistance formula includes a parameter market giving a one-third saving against road. for wind resistance. However, this relates to the The 2015 Business Case estimated that freight natural resistance of air, rather than to ambient operating cost savings represented nearly wind conditions. As ambient wind conditions are 50% of the total economic benefits provided by highly variable, and can either benefit or hinder train Inland Rail. performance, it is not meaningful to include them in the modelling.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 21 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Why transit time and distance are critical to route selection
Lower transit time is critical for improved reliability. Shorter distance encourages a greater volume of freight to rail. Shorter transit times are critical for improved reliability, as a reduced transit The 2010 IRAS examined the impact of distance on preliminary forecast provides a buffer time between train arrival and the advertised availability freight volumes by comparing forecast freight volumes on an Inland Rail route (pick up time) of freight at the terminal. of 1,730km (achieved by a new greenfield line between Narromine to Narrabri) with forecast volumes on an 1,880km Inland Rail route (via Dubbo and This is essential to the achievement of the 98% reliability target in the Werris Creek). Inland Rail Service Offering making rail highly competitive with road for freight transport. As part of 2010 IRAS, ACIL Tasman developed a logit model to calculate estimated future rail tonnages based on a range of factors. The model was The Business Case assumed a reliability buffer of 3.7 hours between train developed from a questionnaire and interviews with key freight companies and unloading and the advertised pick-up time, allowing rail operational delays customers to aid understanding of how modal choices are made in respect of to be recovered within the 98% reliability target. transporting freight.
Lower transit time improves availability. The below table is taken from the ACIL Tasman model showing per annum intercapital freight volumes for the two route scenarios expressed in million ‘Availability’ refers to the ability of rail to offer services with departure and tonnes (MT) per annum. arrival times that meet customer requirements to dispatch and receive freight Availability is directly linked to transit time, as reducing the transit time Year 1880km 1730km Difference increases the range of the feasible arrival and departure times to meet 2030 4.1MT 5.1MT 1.0MT customer needs A transit time of less than 24 hours provides for a very wide range of feasible 2040 5.9MT 7.2MT 1.3MT arrival and departure times in the Melbourne to Brisbane market 2050 8.4MT 10.3MT 1.9MT A terminal to terminal transit time of less than 24 hours allows the inclusion 2060 12.1MT 14.7MT 2.6MT of the 3.7 hour buffer while meeting customer preferences for despatch and receiving of freight. 2070 17.4MT 21.0MT 3.6MT 2080 24.8MT 29.8MT 5.0MT
Source: IRAS 2010, Appendix E, page 64
PAGE 22 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Why transit time and distance are critical to route selection
Distance is a key driver of capital costs – upgrading an existing line is Because of the significance of these factors, route selection has a not always the best option. major bearing on the overall performance of the ARTC 2015 Inland Rail Programme Business Case. Capital cost is directly influenced by the length of the route. A shorter and more direct greenfield route will generally be less expensive than upgrading a longer It is the principal reason why Inland Rail includes significant greenfield brownfield route to meet the full Inland Rail performance specifications. sections – the greenfield sections underpin the improved economic performance driven by the reduced distances and transit time. The decisions around where to construct greenfield versus redevelop existing lines were based on a wide range of factors that included considerations of The 2010 IRAS examined the greenfield Narromine to Narrabri section in length, transit time, constructability, construction cost, environmental impact, comparison with a circuitous route using existing corridors via Werris Creek. geotechnical considerations as well as impacts on privately and publicly owned The 2010 IRAS found that a direct greenfield Narromine to Narrabri route properties (including the number of properties impacted). would be 167km shorter and five hours 30 minutes quicker, with significantly ARTC has direct experience in the upgrading of existing low volume railway improved economic performance flowing principally from the decreased lines to meet Inland Rail mainline standards in the Parkes to Narromine above-rail operating costs of the shorter and faster route. project, which is currently well advanced into construction. ARTC’s practical The improvements in speed, reductions in transit time and resulting experience is that very little of an existing low volume line is salvageable. reductions in operating costs flowing from the greenfield sections of Rail, sleepers, ballast and load-supporting structures (such as underbridges) Inland Rail are central to achieving the economic outcomes in the ARTC require complete replacement to meet the performance standards required 2015 Inland Rail Programme Business Case. for Inland Rail, and in fact even much of the underlying formation needs to be excavated and replaced to meet main line speed and axle load requirements and the much higher annual tonnages that will traverse Inland Rail. As a result, there are few if any savings to be made in seeking to upgrade an existing low-volume line relative to the cost of greenfield construction, and in fact the upgrade option can be more expensive when the costs of removal and disposal of the pre-existing infrastructure are taken into account. Furthermore, routes that seek to re-use existing lines are often longer (and sometimes significantly so) than the direct greenfield routes and can also require significant greenfield connecting lines to be built.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 23 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Key technical characteristics supporting the Service Offering
Train Length 1,800m with future proofing for ultimate 3,600m train length
Axle Load / Max Speed 21 tonnes @ 115km/h, 25 tonnes @ 80km/h, with future proofing for 30 tonnes @ 80km/h
Double Stacking 7.1m clearances for double-stack operation
Interoperability Full interoperability with the interstate mainline standard gauge network Dual-gauging in Queensland to provide for connectivity to the Queensland narrow gauge regional network Connections to the regional and national networks providing standard gauge connections to the ports of Melbourne, Port Kembla, Sydney, Newcastle, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth.
PAGE 24 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Inland Rail: Early origins
Early 20th Century 1990s – 2000s Inland Rail, in one form or another Building on some of the work and along one route or another, undertaken in the 1980s, various has been discussed for more than papers proposing an inland railway 100 years. emerged during the early 1990s. Proposals for a Melbourne- In 1996, a Queensland Rail proposal Queensland-Darwin railway were for an inland railway was subject to first mooted soon after Federation a study by the Bureau of Transport (the map on the right dates and Communications Economics. from 1909). + By the early 2000s, there were In 1915, Prime Minister Andrew at least two significant private Fisher proposed a railway from the sector proposals for an inland Riverina to Queensland. railway.
1970s – 1980s 2004 In the late 1970s and 1980s When ARTC took up the lease of a number of parties revived the Interstate and Hunter main proposals for a Melbourne- lines in NSW in 2004, the sections Brisbane inland railway. between Melbourne and Illabo, Stockinbingal to Narromine and In the mid-1980s, a Queensland Narrabri to near Boggabilla were Government proposal for a new included in the lease on the basis Toowoomba Range tunnel was that they could form part of a first raised. future Melbourne-Brisbane inland railway.
2005 In 2005 the Australian Government committed funding for the 2006 First proposed Melbourne-Queensland-Darwin railway in 1909 North-South Rail Corridor Study.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 25 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 North-South Rail Corridor Study 2006
Detailed consideration Purpose of Inland Rail by the To examine freight demand, capacity and route options for the Melbourne-Sydney- Australian Government Brisbane rail corridor. began with the North-South Report prepared by: Rail Corridor Study in 2006 Far Western Ernst and Young (Lead); sub-corridor ACIL Tasman; Hyder Consulting Commissioned and managed by The Department of Transport and Regional Services Report dated 30 June 2006.
Responsible Minister The Hon Warren Truss MP, Minister for Transport and Regional Services.
2006 North-South Rail Corridor study area
PAGE 26 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 North-South Rail Corridor Study 2006
Report Considered Key Results Route options – 136 route options The study found that the Far Western were considered, grouped into four Sub-Corridor (via Albury and Parkes) sub-corridors: had the lowest capital cost, fastest transit time and best economic cost + Far Western sub-corridor benefit, considering capital and + Central Inland sub-corridor operating costs, access revenue and external factors (environmental, + Coastal sub-corridor congestion benefits etc.). Far Western + Hybrid sub-corridor. Sub-Corridor (Each sub-corridor had options via Albury and via Shepparton) Market assessment. Projected demand. Environmental issues. Other transport infrastructure requirements. Financial and economic impacts.
2006 North-South Rail Corridor Study Area – Far Western Sub-Corridor
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 27 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Inland Rail Alignment Study (IRAS) 2010
Purpose Report considered: To determine the optimum alignment Market take-up for an inland railway within the Far Route development and Western Sub-Corridor identified in the high-level costings 2006 North-South Corridor Study. Capital cost vs transit time Report prepared by: Financial and economic appraisal. PricewaterhouseCoopers (financial lead); ACIL Tasman; Parsons Report Finding Overview Brinckerhoff (technical lead); Southern Section offered the greatest Halcrow, Aurecon opportunity to save money as Commissioned and managed Shepparton route estimated to cost by ARTC $900 million more than Albury route (2010 dollars not updated). Report finalised July 2010. Central Section offered greatest Responsible Minister opportunity to save time, saving more than 5 hours 30 minutes by not going The Hon Anthony Albanese via Dubbo and Werris Creek.* MP, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development Northern Section offered the greatest and Local Government. opportunity to utilise existing protected rail corridors in greenfield sections.
*Source: IRAS 2010, Appendix A, page 63
Study Area for the Inland Rail Alignment Study 2010
PAGE 28 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Inland Rail Alignment Study (IRAS) 2010
Route assessment methodology Route conclusions A large number of route options were Detailed alignment recommended: evaluated in the southern, central and Tottenham – Albury – Illabo northern sections of the Far Western (existing corridor) Sub-Corridor. Illabo – Stockinbingal (greenfield) Evaluation considered: Stockinbingal – Parkes – Narromine Capital cost vs transit time (existing corridor) Impacts on demand Narromine – Narrabri (greenfield) Financial and economic performance. Narrabri – North Star (existing Optimal economic performance was a key corridor) decision criterion in the choice of the overall North Star – Yelarbon (greenfield) route and, in the key central sector, led to the recommendation of a shorter, faster Narromine Yelarbon – Gowrie – Kagaru to Narrabri direct greenfield route rather than (greenfield plus existing corridors) using existing corridors via Werris Creek. Kagaru – Acacia Ridge (existing The above routes were assessed on the basis corridor). of their ability to attract contestable freight. Some sections of the existing Freight firms and customers were surveyed to corridor were identified as requiring understand how modal choices on contestable enhancement works, principally freight were made. For express and other just- clearance improvements to accommodate in-time freight, minimum transit time and high double-stacked trains, while others were reliability were identified as essential. secondary lines requiring upgrading to This work was later reaffirmed in the work full main line standards. undertaken in 2015 by the Inland Rail The classification of each section (project) Implementation Group and formalised in the is shown on page 17. Inland Rail Service Offering.
Inland Rail Alignment Study Route Map 2010, figure 18 on page 43
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 29 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Inland Rail Implementation Group (IRIG) 2015
Purpose IRIG Report prepared by: ARTC 2015 Inland Rail Programme Business Case Recommendations to Government: Inland Rail Implementation Group – Chair The Hon John Anderson AO, with Secretary DIRD, ARTC Inland Rail Programme Business Case To meet the future national freight challenges ARTC CEO and senior Queensland, New South 2015 was the key supporting attachment to the by proceeding with Inland Rail Wales and Victoria Government representatives IRIG Report: Broad alignment to follow 2010 Inland Rail Report preparation managed by Inland Rail PricewaterhouseCoopers (lead) Alignment Study Implementation Group secretariat (DIRD) ACIL Allen 10-year delivery program for Inland Rail Letter of transmittal from IRIG Chair to the from 2015. Commissioned and managed by ARTC. Australian Government, 24 August 2015.
Documents associated with the IRIG Report: Report funded by: 2010 IRAS study The Australian Government. Department of Infrastructure and Regional Responsible Minister Development (DIRD) / Deloitte study – Economic Analysis of the Shepparton option. The Hon. Warren Truss MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure Supporting consultancies: and Transport. Parsons Brinckerhoff Aquenta.
PAGE 30 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Inland Rail Implementation Group (IRIG) 2015 OAKEY TO GOWRIE CALVERT TO KAGARU Approximately 11 km of upgraded OAKEY track (dual gauge) Approximately 54 km of new track GOWRIE This existing track will be converted to (dual gauge) BRISBANE CALVERT dual gauge track. Using 1.3 km of tunnelling this section will connect Inland Rail with the Sydney to TOOWOOMBA Brisbane coastal line, diverting freight GRANDCHESTER DETAIL OF QLD SECTIONS away from metropolitan areas. MILLMERRAN KAGARU
Findings in relation to the route OAKEY GOWRIE BRISBANE INGLEWOOD NSW/QLD BORDER TO OAKEY TOOWOOMBA Approximately 116 km of new dual gauge track GRANDCHESTER YELARBON plus 71 km of upgraded track IRIG agreed broadly with the alignment identified in the 2010 IRAS, but considered ROSEWOOD This dual guage track will connect Australia’s most productive farming regions to the Port of Brisbane CALVERT three sections in more detail. NORTH STAR and will include new track and upgraded narrow GOWRIE TO CALVERT gauge track. MILLMERRAN Approximately 76 km of new upgraded and dual gauge track KAGARU NORTH STAR TO NSW/QLD BORDER This will include 7.6 km of tunnelling to MOREE Approximately 52 km of new track Albury vs Shepparton: IRIG endorsed the route via Albury (as per the 2010 IRAS) create an efficient route through the KAGARU TO ACACIA RIDGE This new track will complete one of the key steep terrain of the Toowoomba and missing links and provide a new, efficient rather than Shepparton because freight values coming from Shepparton did Little Liverpool Ranges. Approximately 35 km of existing connection between our farms and export track markets. This track will be upgraded to increase height clearance and allow double not justify the added cost of between $1 billion and $2 billion (2015 dollars not stacking. NARRABRI TO NORTH STAR Approximately 183 km of upgraded NARRABRI track, 3 km of new track updated). GWABEGAR This track will be upgraded (with a deviation) to allow inland rail traffic to travel at maximum speed. North Star to Toowoomba: IRIG noted that further hydrological and geotechnical assessments were needed between North Star and Toowoomba which may result NARROMINE TO NARRABRI Approximately 307 km of new track in a final alignment to the east or west of the 2010 IRAS alignment. This new track will reduce the overall journey time and complete one of the missing links between Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane. Toowoomba Range: IRIG endorsed adoption of Queensland Transport’s 2003 NARROMINE
alignment between Gowrie and Grandchester. PARKES TO NARROMINE Approximately 107 km of upgraded track East-W est Corridor This track will be upgraded to allow the inland rail traffic to travel NEWCASTLE at maximum speed. The route endorsed by IRIG is shown in the map on this page. < PERTH /ADELAIDE PARKES
STOCKINBINGAL TO PARKES Approximately 173 km of existing track Inland Rail will benefit from the track upgrades that ARTC has already SYDNEY completed to this section. Additional works will be undertaken to accommo- date double stacking.
STOCKINBINGAL ILLABO TO STOCKINBINGAL ute Existing Co Ro Approximately 37 km of new track asta l This new track will reduce route ILLABO distance by 30 km and avoid the JUNEE Bethungra Spiral. WAGGA WAGGA CANBERRA ALBURY (VIC/NSW BORDER) TO ILLABO Approximately 185 km of existing track This track will be upgraded to increase height clearance and to accommodate double stacking.
ALBURY
TOTTENHAM TO ALBURY (VIC/NSW BORDER) Approximately 304 km of existing track This track will be upgraded to increase height clearance and to accommodate double stacking.
SEYMOUR ALIGNMENT KEY Existing track / track upgrades New track Dual gauge track MELBOURNE
Inland Rail Implementation Group (IRIG) 2015 Route
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 31 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Inland Rail route development since 2016
Following from the IRIG Report, ARTC has classified the From 2016, ARTC's task as the delivery agent for Inland Rail was to examine whether there were cost-effective opportunities to improve upon the 2015 IRIG Inland Rail route into 13 sections (projects) that could be alignment in order to improve outcomes beyond the Inland Rail Service Offering. described broadly as either brownfield (utilising existing An option was assessed to the point where it was determined that it was either too expensive or degraded the Service Offering. rail track or corridors) or greenfield (sections requiring The greenfield sections required assessment of options to determine alignment completely new corridors or track). study areas within which the final rail corridor will be located. The alignment included in the IRIG Report has undergone further refinement in a number of sections since 2015. The process for evaluating route options in greenfield sections was agreed upon in late 2016. The process and key evaluation factors are highlighted in the diagram on page 35 and has been available on the Inland Rail website since 2017. Outputs from this process have guided route option decisions. There are three key considerations in selecting any route: Ability to enhance the Inland Rail Service Offering Construction and operating costs Outcomes from assessment of options in Multi-Criteria Analysis workshops.
PAGE 32 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Inland Rail route development since 2016
Since the end of 2016, the development of the Inland Rail route has been Development of the Multi-Criteria Analysis framework determined by a combination of comparative construction costs and the impact The MCA criteria and weightings as used by ARTC were developed incrementally (positive or negative) of a route option on the Inland Rail Service Offering, together from 2014 by three of Australia’s and the world’s leading engineering and with the results of any Multi-Criteria Analysis undertaken on a route option. technical advisory firms. Initial work was undertaken by Parsons Brinckerhoff The Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) framework seeks to ensure recommendations and the Multi-Criteria Analysis criteria and relativity weightings were further take into account a wide range of criteria including: developed by ARTC’s technical advisors, SMEC and ARUP, over the course of 2015 and 2016. The criteria and relativity weightings were formally adopted by ARTC in engineering and technical factors 2016 and have been the standard used since then by ARTC and its consultants. social and community impacts number of properties directly impacted The role of a Multi-Criteria Analysis in route selection environmental impacts Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) is an evaluation tool for complex problems, which provides a logical, structured process for the consideration of a broad geotechnical and constructability related issues. range of criteria in the evaluation process. An MCA provides a mechanism for The MCA process is led and managed by ARTC* and factors taken into consideration of both quantitative and qualitative criteria within a consistent consideration are set out in the graphic on page 34. The exception to this was the analytical framework: these include technical viability, environmental impact, MCA conducted by AECOM and Aurecon as part of the assessment of four route constructability, operational implications, community/property impacts and options in the Border to Gowrie section. Further detail is provided in pages 86–88 any other relevant considerations, such as regulatory or legislative impacts. of this document. MCA seeks to identify a balanced outcome that optimises the various factors to maximise the overall benefit of the recommended option. Within a particular MCA workshop, the agreed weightings are applied uniformly across all options considered in that workshop. The outcome of any MCA The purpose of an MCA is to permit a comparative assessment of route options, workshop is just one factor in choosing between competing route options and not resulting in an indication as to which option/s warrant further consideration. An a determining factor in its own right. MCA in itself is not the sole framework for determining which route option is superior to others. An MCA indicates whether a route option warrants further consideration which is then assessed for its ability to enhance the Service Offering and The process for assessing route options leading to a determined route and final whether its estimated construction and operating costs are appropriate for rail corridor, and the non-linear nature of decision-making in many cases, is any perceived benefits. explained in the infographic and accompanying text on p.35.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 33 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Factors affecting route selection since 2016
IS A MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS * ROUTE TECHNICAL VIABILITY (17%) ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATIONAL APPROACH (16.5%) VIABLE? considers the alignment, impact on IMPACTS (12.5%) considers the impact on travel time, public utilities, geotechnical conditions, considers the ecological impacts reliability and availability, and network impacts on existing road and rail (flora, fauna and habitats), visual impacts, interoperability and connectivity including interfaces with rail terminals and network. This is a broad range of networks, flood immunity and hydrology noise and vibration impacts, flooding and qualitative and and future proofing. waterway impacts and the effect on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. quantitative criteria that is considered as part of the Multi-Criteria Analysis SAFETY ASSESSMENT (16.5%) COMMUNITY AND APPROVALS AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT (12.5%) (MCA). The MCA process considers construction safety, PROPERTY IMPACTS (12.5%) is recognised as an operational safety, public safety, considers planning and approval considers property impacts, Indigenous industry standard and is road safety interfaces and emergency and non-Indigenous heritage, heritage, r equirements, State and Federal agency response response. impact on community, community buy-in, Local government buy-in, other widely used in Australia response and current and future land statutory and regulatory approvals and and internationally. use and links to economic impacts. .service authorities, such as utilities etc. CONSTRUCTABILITY & SCHEDULE (12.5%) considers construction duration, access and complexity, resources, interface with operational railway and staging opportunities.
Alternatives are compared on their ability to enhance the DOES IT SERVICE OFFERING ENHANCE TRANSIT TIME RELIABILITY This is the minimum THE SERVICE requires a transit time from Melbourne requires 98% reliability to level of service required < 24 freight customers. HOURS to Brisbane of less than 24 hours. 98% by rail operators and OFFERING? freight customers.
COMPETITIVE PRICING AVAILABILITY requires suitable train paths at requires competitive pricing for the times that suit the needs of freight customers . the market. * The criteria are weighted to reflect relative Alternatives are compared on basis of importance in decision making. However, IS IT different MCAs can have slightly different COSTS This is the construction VALUE estimate, and track weightings reflecting the specifics of the maintenance and train CONSTRUCTION options under assessment and taking into FOR OPERATING COSTS operating costs for ESTIMATE account any previous MCA results or other MONEY? customers. assessments undertaken in respect of the options being considered. The final step in the process is that ARTC makes a recommendation to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport through the Inland Rail Sponsors Group (Previously the Inland Rail Steering Committee).
PAGE 34 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Process for assessing route options leading to a final rail corridor
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 35 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Route status as at December 2020 – Victoria and New South Wales
Since 2010 there has been consistency in the general route of Inland Rail, allowing for refinements primarily in the greenfield sections in New South Wales. The table on this page summarises this consistency across sections in Victoria and New South Wales, indicating areas or ways in which the route changed or evolved in the IRIG Report 2015 and in subsequent greenfield section Study Areas.
State Section Km Type Alignment Development IRAS 2010 IRIG Present Day Inland Rail Bilateral Agreement signed by 2015 Study Area Australian Government and State Government. VIC Tottenham 305 Brownfield Route via Albury chosen on basis (Melbourne) of cost vs route via Shepparton Check Check 16 March 2018 to Albury Albury 185 Brownfield Existing rail line to build on Check Check to Illabo previous investment Illabo to 37 Greenfield Opportunity to save time and Check Check Stockinbingal avoid Bethungra Spiral Stockinbingal 170 Brownfield Existing rail line to build on Check Check to Parkes previous investment Parkes to 103 Brownfield Existing rail line to build on Check Check Narromine previous investment NSW 4 May 2018 Narromine 306 Greenfield Narromine to Narrabri via Route via Pilliga Forest plus localised to Narrabri Gwabegar, not Dubbo and Check variations Narromine-Baradine Werris Creek, saved 5:30hrs Narrabri to 184 Brownfield Existing rail line to build on Check Check North Star previous investment North Star 39 Greenfield Eastern alignment North Star Western alignment via disused to NSW/Qld to Yelarbon Check Boggabilla line Border
PAGE 36 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Route Status as at December 2020 – Queensland
Since 2010 there has been consistency in the general route of Inland Rail, allowing for refinements primarily in the greenfield sections in Queensland. The table on this page summarises this consistency across sections in Queensland, indicating areas or ways in which the route changed or evolved in the IRIG Report 2015 and in subsequent greenfield section Study Areas.
State Section Km Type Alignment Development IRAS 2010 IRIG 2015 Present Day Study Area Inland Rail Bilateral Agreement signed by Australian Government and State Government.
NSW/Qld 207 Greenfield/ Inglewood-Gowrie via Millmerran 2010 IRAS route modified via Border to Brownfield and Oakey Check Wellcamp-Charlton Gowrie* ** Gowrie to 28 Greenfield Alignment via Murphys Creek 2003 Qld Helidon Govt G2G Check alignment ** Helidon to 47 Greenfield/ Existing QR operating corridor 2003 Qld Calvert Brownfield Govt G2G Check 29 November 2019 alignment QLD **Calvert to 53 Greenfield 2010 Qld Govt SFRC alignment 2010 Qld Kagaru Govt SFRC Check alignment Kagaru to 49 Brownfield Kagaru to Acacia Ridge only Project extended to Bromelton Acacia Ridge Check in 2017 & Bromelton
*The IRIG Report endorsed the 2010 IRAS route but noted potential for other options either east or west of that alignment. ** The Gowrie/Helidon/Kagaru sections are being delivered through a single Public/Private Partnership (PPP) and follow the protected Gowrie to Grandchester Corridor and Southern Freight Rail Corridor, allowing for some minor variations.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 37 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Consultation on route options 2016–2020
PAGE 38 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Consultation on route options 2016–2020
The 2006 North-South Rail Corridor Study, 2010 IRAS and 2015 IRIG study were high-level studies with consultation focused on federal, state and local governments and industry stakeholders. This was appropriate given the very high-level nature of the decisions being made about route and alignment during this period.
At this stage of the process our engagement was focused very much on informing people and communities. ONGOING AND INCREASINGLY TARGETED ENGAGEMENT To progress from engagement that informs to engagement that provides DETAILED for effective consultation with DESIGN landowners and communities it is INITIAL necessary to recognise the level of ENGAGEMENT PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT TODAY SESSIONS information able to be provided at the relevant time. As the project progressed and more technical studies were completed, REFERENCE DESIGN the level of information available and community engagement possible AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION AVAILABLE OF AMOUNT increased. In the early life of the FIELD INVESTIGATIONS Inland Rail project, the information DESKTOP 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12201801 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12201901 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 available often did not, nor could it, 2016 2017 2018 2019 meet the expectations of landowners TIME and the community The nexus between information and time as factors in engagement In the early life of the Inland Rail project the information that was Extensive landowner, community and stakeholder available often did not, nor could it, consultation for Inland Rail commenced in early 2016 meet the expectations of landowners as a preferred alignment started to become clearer and the community. following the 2015 IRIG Report.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 39 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Number of consultation interactions by State 2016–2019
Extensive landowner, community The focus of consultation during 2016 and 2017 In addition to landowner and stakeholder meetings, in the greenfield sections was to progress route from 1 January to 31 December 2019 ARTC Inland and stakeholder consultation for option comparisons where appropriate and Rail staff delivered presentations and/or supported an Inland Rail commenced in early 2016 understand relative potential impacts, both on the Inland Rail presence at 50 conferences or major events. Inland Rail Service Offering and local landowners As at 31 December 2019, ARTC Inland Rail had 799 as a preferred alignment started to and communities. Land Access Agreements in place with landowners become clearer. In the brownfield sections the focus was on explaining enabling ARTC Inland Rail and its consultants to proposed works and timelines and gaining landowner undertake the studies and investigations necessary and community feedback on impacts to refine a study area or determine the optimum and designs. location for the final rail corridor. Between July 2016 and December 2019 ARTC ARTC Inland Rail has engaged with Traditional increased its program of briefings and information Owners, Elders and community leaders in sessions along the alignment. Queensland, NSW and Victoria, including in relation to the planned route for greenfield projects. These included meetings with Councils, Federal and State MPs, community consultation via public Indigenous groups along the Inland Rail alignment meetings and drop-in sessions, and exhibitions at include the Wurundjeri, Taungurung, Yorta Yorta, agricultural shows. Wiradjuri, Wailwan, Gomeroi, Bigambul, Western Wakka Wakka, Yuggera, Ugurapul and Jagera peoples. Most importantly, ARTC increased its meetings with individual affected landowners. These face-to-face interactions have enabled ARTC Inland Rail project delivery and engagement staff to gain a much deeper understanding of potential effects on landowners and their properties and help ARTC Inland Rail to avoid these effects or develop mitigation measures.
PAGE 40 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Consultation on route options 2016–2020
As work progressed on identifying From the consultation, Inland Rail learned a number The learnings from consultation, coupled with of things, including: technical and economic impact assessments, a preferred alignment and resulted in the following route alignment changes: Landowners had a preference that the rail line study areas within greenfield follow lot boundaries as much as practical Within the Narromine to Narrabri section a changed route that went through a part of the sections, ARTC increased its level Property severances should be minimised as Pilliga State Forest and reduced the number of much as possible, having regard to the nature of community and landowner private landowners impacted of farming and other operations undertaken on consultation in order to understand the property A decision to go east rather than west around the town of Narromine reflecting community local preferences and identify The number of new properties impacted should concerns about flooding impacts of the route be kept as low as possible opportunities for route optimisation. option to go west As much use as possible should be made of Within the North Star to Border section, a Between 1 July 2016 and 31 December 2020, existing rail tracks and corridors decision to use more of the Boggabilla line across Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, A number of communities wanted Inland Rail rather than go east through high conservation there were close to 20,000 direct interactions with to be routed through or near to them in order value land. community members and stakeholders across that they could maximise opportunities from multiple forums. Inland Rail. These forums included landowner meetings, community information sessions and Community Consultative Committee meetings. They do not include ARTC-hosted industry briefings, addresses at conferences or attendance at conventions. The graphs on page 42 illustrate the above on a state-by-state basis in six-monthly periods from 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2019.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 41 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Consultation on route options 2016–2019: Number of interactions by State*
QLD NSW VIC
2000 2000 2000 1935 1800 1800 1800
1600 1600 1600 1581 1400 1518 1400 1527 1400 1368 1200 1200 1200 Number of interactions 1202 Number of interactions 1254 Number of interactions 1000 1043 1000 1000 930 967 800 838 800 911 819 800
600 600 600
300 300 300 258 233 10 113 130 115 3 3
Month 7–12 1–6 7–12 1–6 7–12 1–6 7–12 Month 7–12 1–6 7–12 1–6 7–12 1–6 7–12 Month 7–12 1–6 7–12 1–6 7–12 1–6 7–12 Year 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019 Year 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019 Year 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019
Calculated at six monthly periods Calculated at six monthly periods Calculated at six monthly periods
*The above graphs have not been updated beyond 31 December 2019 as consultation during 2020 was focused on identifying the preferred final rail corridor with directly impacted landowners on the route determined already in greenfield sections. There are around 300 such landowners.
PAGE 42 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Inland Rail project route selection
Summaries
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 43 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Overview
The following pages KEY CHARACTERISTICS provide a summary of the route development for each Transit Time Construction Cost Distance MCA Score of the component sections of Inland Rail. Favourable >4min reduction >$20 million saving >5km saving >+0.5
Neutral +/–4min variation +/-$20 million variation +/–5km 0 to +/–0.5 The Inland Rail route was essentially established by the 2015 IRIG Report which broadly adopted the findings of the 2010 IRAS Unfavourable 5–10min increase $20–40 million increase 5–10km –0.5 to –1.0 Report. ARTC's role from 2016 onwards was to assess route options that would improve the Highly >10min increase >$40 million increase >10km increase -1.0 or worse ability of the Inland Rail route to improve the unfavourable Inland Rail Service Offering.
A colour key is used to define the favourability In the above diagram, MCA Score refers to the scoring of route options during or as the result of a of various characteristics of a route as shown Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) workshop. in the table on this page. The colour key is used in relation to the greenfield project route selection summaries.
PAGE 44 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Transit Time Construction Cost Distance MCA Score
Favourable >4min reduction >$20 million saving >5km saving >+0.5 Inland Rail project Neutral +/–4min variation +/-$20 million variation +/–5km 0 to +/–0.5 route selection Unfavourable 5–10min increase $20–40 million increase 5–10km –0.5 to –1.0
Highly summaries >10min increase >$40 million increase >10km increase -1.0 or worse unfavourable
Melbourne to Illabo
Wangaratta, Victoria
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 45 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Melbourne to Illabo
A key issue considered in the 2006 North-South Corridor Study, the 2010 IRAS and the 2015 IRIG Report was whether Inland Rail should adopt a route via Albury or via Shepparton.
Albury vs Shepparton options from the 2010 IRAS
PAGE 46 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Melbourne to Illabo 2010–2015
2006 North-South Rail Corridor Study 2015 Inland Rail Implementation Group (IRIG) The 2006 North-South Corridor Study favoured IRIG considered a further study commissioned by DIRD in response to representations by key stakeholders the Albury route as having better economic in the ‘food bowl’ region of northern Victoria and southern New South Wales. performance (NPV) than options via Shepparton. This study, undertaken by Deloitte, again compared a route via Shepparton and Narrandera with a route via Albury. 2010 Inland Rail Alignment Study (IRAS) The study concluded that the Shepparton option had a Benefit Cost Ratio of 0.3 at a 4% discount rate, equating to a negative net present value of -$629 million. The 2010 IRAS took the 2006 study into account, as well as studies commissioned by proponents The analysis highlighted that demand estimates for the region are substantially below those that would of the Shepparton route. be required for the Shepparton-Narrandera option to be economically viable. It estimated that 5.5 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) of regional freight would be required to economically justify the Shepparton The 2010 IRAS concluded that the route via Albury option, over three times the 1.8 MTPA identified by regional group the Food Bowl Inland Rail Alliance (a gap offered a far superior capital cost outcome. of 3.7 MTPA). Although the Shepparton route offered a 30 min quicker transit time, it attracted a significant extra Based on the work undertaken in 2014–15, the IRIG independently estimated that the extra capital cost of capital cost – in 2010 adding $900 million to the the route via Shepparton and Narrandera would be between $1 – $2 billion at that time. project cost relative to the Albury route. Sensitivity testing of key variables indicated it was unlikely any scenario exists where the Shepparton option would provide a net economic benefit. Accordingly, the IRIG Report (24 August 2015) re-affirmed that the route via Albury was preferred. IRIG also noted that adoption of the Albury route does not preclude future development of an additional route linking Shepparton with Narrandera and through to Parkes, if demonstrated to be economically justified at some future time.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 47 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Melbourne to Illabo 2016–2020
All subsequent work by ARTC since 2015 has This involved: The section from Melbourne to Albury in 2020 was adopted the IRIG recommended route from split into two phases, with phase 1 work focused + one-on-one meetings with neighbours Melbourne to Illabo via Albury. on enhancement of 12 sites along the North East in the areas where enhancements will Rail Line between Beveridge and Albury Throughout 2019 and 2020, ARTC progressed be undertaken Feasibility (Reference) Designs for the proposed A key issue that requires finalisation is the + neighbourhood conversation booths and works along the Melbourne to Illabo corridor. location of any new intermodal freight terminal in catch-ups at community events to share or close to Melbourne as this will have impacts on ARTC conducted community and stakeholder information and hear local feedback the final destination for Inland Rail in Melbourne. consultation in relation to current design thinking, + engaging with councils, industry and road through the latter months of 2018 and through to and rail agencies to facilitate design solutions 2020, to inform the process of finalising that support wider community outcomes Feasibility Design. where practicable. When complete, Reference Design provides a sufficiently developed level of design to allow environmental assessment to be undertaken, planning approvals to be sought, and (when approved) tenders for final design and construction to be sourced, with a target to be commence construction on the Melbourne to Albury section in 2023.
PAGE 48 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Inland Rail project route selection summaries
Illabo to Stockinbingal
Stockinbingal, New South Wales
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 49 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Illabo to Stockinbingal
Flowing from the choice of the route via Albury, there was a need to determine a route to connect the main southern line between Junee and Cootamundra to the Stockinbingal to Parkes line.
2006 North-South Corridor Study Option C (upgrading the existing corridor to Inland Rail standards) was discounted The 2006 Study noted the potential because of the very high capital costs for sub-corridor route options in the (estimated at around $680 million) in Junee-Stockinbingal sector. 2010 due to the extensive deviations in often difficult terrain. 2010 IRAS Option C also did not easily facilitate the C A The 2010 IRAS examined a number of use of double-stacked trains without B options, illustrated on the map on the right. significant operations impacts on The Base Case (existing corridor without team movements in the vicinity of the upgrading) was discounted because it Bethungra Spiral would not provide for double-stack It should be noted that the 2010 IRAS container operations, a key service was a high-level study and that the objective of the 2010 IRAS (and Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) framework subsequently included in the Inland Rail for Inland Rail had not yet been Service Offering by IRIG). developed at the time of the 2010 IRAS. Option A (Junee-Stockinbingal direct) MCA scores did not form part of the and Option B (Junee-Illabo-Stockinbingal) 2010 IRAS evaluation. had comparable capital costs and similar transit times. Option B was favoured 2015 IRIG because it offered a better mix of IRIG adopted the 2010 IRAS greenfield and brownfield development recommended route (Option B on that reduced environmental and the right). property impacts.
PAGE 50 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Illabo to Stockinbingal: Illustrative summary as per the 2010 IRAS recommendations
OPTION C BASE CASE OPTION A OPTION B Junee-Cootamundra-Stockinbingal Junee-Cootamundra- Junee-Stockinbingal Direct Junee-Illabo-Stockinbingal existing corridor with extensive Stockinbingal existing corridor Greenfield (Brownfield and Greenfield) deviations
60km 67km 87km Distance 95km 35km shorter 28km shorter 8km shorter 39 min 45 min 62 min Transit Time 79 min 40 min saving 34 min saving 17 min saving
Double stack No Yes Yes Yes
$0m Construction Cost +$150m +$140m +$680m (for relativity) Environmental and Major – Moderate – Moderate – Base Case Land impact 60km of greenfield 39km of greenfield 32km of deviations
Overall
Recommended Check
Favourable
Neutral
Unfavourable
Highly unfavourable
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 51 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Illabo to Stockinbingal route refinement: 2016–2017
Over the 2016–2017 period, further Southern section: Central section: Stockinbingal section: assessment work was undertaken Three route options were identified, This section is heavily constrained Landowners raised concerns on the recommended route, with including the 2010 IRAS Base Case. by topography and interface regarding land impacts in South an emphasis on gaining additional with properties. Stockinbingal. input from potentially impacted Option B (Illabo to Stockinbingal) landowners, councils and the was preferred as it: As a result of this complexity, seven Three options were investigated wider community. options were investigated. to address these concerns, + scored a marginally preferable but there was no clearly As part of this process, a MCA result (+0.4) MCA results did not indicate a preferred option. major focus was engaging with clearly preferred option. + offered a better connection to individual landowners. Over 90% It was decided that the the main southern line It was decided that the of potentially affected landowners investigation corridor should investigation corridor should be were met with and consulted + addressed landowner concerns be widened to capture all three widened to capture all the options during this period. further north by shifting the options and provide design and provide design flexibility in the route to the west to minimise flexibility in the Feasibility For assessment purposes, the Feasibility Design phase. property impacts. Design phase. route in this section was divided into southern, central and Stockinbingal sections as outlined in the three accompanying maps on page 53.
PAGE 52 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Illabo to Stockinbingal route refinement: 2016–2017
Southern section Central section Stockinbingal section
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 53 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Illabo to Stockinbingal route refinement: 2017–2020
The alignment assessment work in the ARTC commenced further community and 2016–17 period did not identify a single stakeholder consultation in relation to preferred alignment for the Illabo to the current design thinking (including a Stockinbingal project. potential preferred corridor) in September 2018, to better inform the Feasibility A study area approximately 2km in Design process. width (map, left refers) was taken forward into the Feasibility (Reference) Design The 250m-wide focused area of phase to keep all options open for investigation for the Illabo to Stockinbingal further evaluation. project was announced on 30 July 2019. A subsequent seven-week consultation In June 2018, ARTC submitted a State period included one-on-one meetings Significant Infrastructure application with directly impacted landowners, as well for the Illabo to Stockinbingal project as community information sessions. to the New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment. In response Throughout the second half of 2019 to this application, the NSW Department and 2020, work continued in relation to of Planning and Environment issued the engineering optimisation designed to Secretary’s Environmental Assessment identify the best, most cost-effective route Requirements which initiated the formal in this critically important section. planning approval process. A preferred final 40 to 60m-wide rail corridor will be identified as part of the Environmental Impact Statement for the project, expected to be lodged with the NSW Government in late 2021.
Broad overview of study area with main route options shown
PAGE 54 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Inland Rail project route selection summaries
Stockinbingal to Narromine
Parkes, New South Wales
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 55 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Stockinbingal to Parkes
With the decision from the 2010 IRAS Study Parkes Bypass Proposal 2015 to adopt the route via Albury rather than In response to stakeholder feedback seeking to separate via Shepparton, the existing railway from Inland Rail from the existing rail Stockinbingal to Parkes was incorporated into services operating through Parkes and generally aligning with a planned Inland Rail’s route. road bypass for heavy vehicles, an Alignment Development and No alternative options were identified as the Stockinbingal Assessment Review was undertaken to Parkes alignment was suitable for Inland Rail due to its in September 2015 of possible grade and relative straightness. Inland Rail bypass options, passing This section is an existing main line (170km) requiring west of Parkes. enhancement to increase its capacity by an additional While a rail bypass was considered to crossing loop to enable trains travelling in opposite directions have some benefits (most significantly to pass safely and clearance improvements to accommodate a transit time saving of 2 minutes and double-stacked trains. 30 seconds), the review identified that there would be significant additional implementation costs in the order of $80–100 million compared to an upgrade of the existing line. 2015 IRIG Route The alignment through Parkes achieves the requirements of the Service Offering when considered on an end-to-end basis, and as a result of the significant capital costs associated Route options considered in 2015 to bypass Parkes. with the bypass option, further Ultimately, no bypass options were progressed. investigation of the bypass option was not progressed after 2015.
Stockinbingal to Parkes utilises the existing rail line via Forbes.
PAGE 56 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Parkes to Narromine
This part of the Inland Rail route was defined in the 2006 North-South Rail Corridor Study. No alternative options were identified to the existing rail line between the towns of Parkes and Narromine (98km). The alignment's grade and minimal track curvature made it generally suitable for Inland Rail. However, as the Parkes to Narromine line is currently a secondary line, it requires a major track upgrade to meet Inland Rail mainline standards.
Parkes North-West Link Construction commences on Parkes to Narromine A later addition to the project in 2015 (during the Feasibility Assessment stage) In September 2018 the Parkes to Parkes North-West Link Options from 2016 Feasibility Assessment (purple = favoured) was the new 5km greenfield link at Parkes Narromine project received the necessary The other route options (coloured blue, green and orange) were discounted – the Parkes North-West Link. primary project approvals from the Australian and New South Wales The new link connects the Parkes to Governments, after which ARTC signed a Narromine line to ARTC’s main East-West construction contract with INLink, a joint line which runs east to Sydney and west venture between BMD Group and Fulton towards South Australia and Western Hogan, to build this section of track. Australia (the existing Trans Australia line). On 13 December 2018, the Deputy Prime This link will facilitate the operation of Minister, the Hon Michael McCormack MP, trains directly from Brisbane to Adelaide turned the ceremonial first sod to mark the and Perth. This was identified in the ARTC commencement of construction of Inland 2015 Inland Rail Programme Business Rail in Parkes. Case as a major component of the future traffic base for Inland Rail, representing On 15 September 2020, a ceremonial over 15% of the total forecast traffic (by net golden clip was "hammered" into place tonne km) on Inland Rail in 2040. by the Deputy Prime Minister to mark the completion of major construction works The Deputy Prime Minister, (Hon) Michael McCormack MP with the ceremonial golden on this project. clip marking completion of construction
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 57 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Inland Rail project route selection summaries
Narromine to Narrabri
Narrabri, New South Wales
PAGE 58 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 N2N Route Option Analysis: Narromine to Narrabri
The 306km Narromine to Narrabri (N2N) section is the longest greenfield section in Inland Rail and is the section that makes a Melbourne to Brisbane 24-hour transit time possible. Route selection for the N2N section was the focus in the 2010 IRAS and numerous community consultation efforts from 2016–2018
2006 North-South Rail Corridor Study In addition to the overall time benefit of the new greenfield route, the 2010 IRAS recommended the The 2006 North-South Rail Corridor Study identified 167km less following benefits: and saved a number of route options for this section, over a 5 hours 30 wide area ranging from Werris Creek in the east to + Narromine to Curban – as it was more cost minutes Burren Junction in the west. effective than an upgraded route via Dubbo + Curban to Gwabegar – as it required less 2010 IRAS capital expenditure than an upgrade would Following technical, financial and economic analysis from Curban to Coonamble plus new track from in the 2010 IRAS, numerous route options were Coonamble to Gwabegar refined down to two scenarios: + Narrabri bypass – because of the significant + existing railway lines via Werris Creek to Narrabri speed constraints in Narrabri and the cost of an existing bridge and track on the existing route + a more direct greenfield route between through Narrabri. Narromine and Narrabri. The adoption of a shorter greenfield route between The direct Narromine to Narrabri greenfield option Narromine and Narrabri increased the forecast had increased capital cost but was 167km shorter demand and revenue of the total Inland Rail project than the route via Werris Creek (473 km)*. and enhanced the economic benefits of the project. The standard and alignment of the rail lines that (Reference: 2010 IRAS, p40) would be used for a route via Werris Creek reduced average train speed to 53km/h compared with the 2015 IRIG reference speed of 88km/h on the shorter greenfield The 2015 IRIG adopted the 2010 IRAS alignment. route (ARTC's current train modelling shows that the 88km/h assumed in the 2010 IRAS remains valid). The combination of shorter distance and higher average speed on the greenfield route reduced Narromine to Narrabri Options – 2010 IRAS transit time by 5 hours and 30 minutes. MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 59 *The 2020 reference design route length is 306km following 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 route optimisation work between 2016–2019 N2N Route Option Analysis: Narromine to Narrabri 2016 concept alignment
The more narrowed concept alignment for Inland Rail in the Narromine to Narrabri section was developed in 2016 as the basis for assessing whether there were options that would improve upon the 2010 IRAS alignment endorsed by IRIG in 2015.
From mid-2016, ARTC commenced The alternative route options that were broader community consultation about subject to consultation with landholders the 2016 concept alignment. and communities are addressed later on in this section. Two key themes arose from the consultation: The results of the route option assessments have been made publicly available on the + an amount of community support Inland Rail website primarily through for use of the Coonamble line as an progressive publication since late 2017 of: alternative to the concept alignment + reports of Multi-Criteria Analysis + there was broad support for a more (MCA) workshops held in October 2016, direct route through the Pilliga Forest December 2016 and May 2017 as an alternative to the concept alignment. + the Narromine to Narrabri Options Report (November 2017) A number of route options were considered as alternatives to the concept + the Narromine to Narrabri Route and alignment but all added significant time Alignment Development Summary and/or costs, except the options through (March 2018) the Pilliga State Forest that reduced + ARTC responses to questions from impact on private landowners and saved the NSW Farmers Association about both time (6–12 minutes) and capital cost the Narromine to Narrabri route ($83 million). (October 2018).
Narromine to Narrabri 2016 concept alignment Map
PAGE 60 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 N2N Route Option Analysis: East or West around Narromine
An eastern route around Narromine While the eastern option added 1.02km and 24 The eastern option also had a higher MCA score seconds in transit time, this was not considered driven primarily by: (via Eumungerie Road before significant enough to outweigh the advantages + better technical viability, constructability and that the eastern option offered. re-joining the concept alignment at safety outcomes Factors relevant to the decision to go east rather Burroway) was compared with the + improved community and safety outcomes as the than west around Narromine include: concept alignment which took a route eastern option means that Inland Rail trains will + traversing land with better geotechnical not go through Narromine. to the west of Narromine. conditions allowing structural material to be While the eastern route added an apparent sourced on site, therefore improving safety $37.1 million to the construction cost, this cost The eastern route was ultimately outcomes by reducing the volume of material included $11.3 million for a grade-separation at moved to the site by road recommended to the Australian Tomingley Road which is no longer considered a Government and incorporated into + savings in the order of $12.2 million compared requirement. The effect of this change was to reduce with the earthworks requirements of the the notional additional cost of going east the current Inland Rail alignment. western option of Narromine to $25.8 million (which represents about 1.7% of the estimated section capital cost) + the opportunity to get to higher ground which was not considered sufficient to outweigh quicker by going east than west reduced risk the other benefits. from flooding and hydrology impacts due to: The western option had a greater risk of a latent - 11km less track in the floodplain (10km vs risk of flooding and/or poor geological conditions 21km via the western option) increasing the cost of structures to cross the - 14.3km (90%) less structures (bridges, floodplain which, if realised, would likely have viaducts and culverts) required to meet reduced or even fully negated the apparent the 1% AEP (1:100 years) flood immunity comparative cost advantage. impacts (1.6km compared with 15.9km for The eastern option also offered the opportunity the western option) to have an expanded study area (out to 5km) which + fewer private level crossings (seven for would maximise the design flexibility to have an the eastern option compared with 13 for the alignment that avoided or minimised the flooding western option) effects of the Backwater Cowal and target better crossing points of the Dubbo rail line the Mitchell Highway and the Macquarie River.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 61 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 N2N Route Option Analysis: East or West around Narromine
PAGE 62 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 N2N Route Option Analysis: Narromine to Curban via Gilgandra?
A key question had always been selecting the best route from Narromine to Curban where Inland Rail would intersect with the existing Dubbo–Coonamble rail line. One option was to assess possible use of the southern section of the Coonamble line via Gilgandra
During 2016, a number of options (101 through to 107 in the map on this page) were assessed against the concept alignment (shown in orange on the map)) that utilised various lengths of the Dubbo-Coonamble line south of Curban. During October 2016 and December 2016, all of these options were considered and assessed as being inferior to the 2016 concept alignment due to longer distances, higher construction costs, operational interface issues and noise/ vibration issues through Gilgandra. Accordingly, as none of the options improved the Inland Rail Service Offering or presented other compelling reasons to be considered further, all of these options were discounted in December 2016 and not considered in the final route assessment workshop (May 2017). The decision was, having gone east of Narromine, the best option was to get back to the 2016 concept alignment as quickly as possible rather than proceed further east towards and/or through Gilgandra. Full reports of three MCA workshops held in October 2016, December 2016 and May 2017 are available on the Inland Rail website.
Narromine to Curban – October 2016 MCA workshop map
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 63 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 N2N Route Option Analysis: Narromine to Curban route options
CURBAN 2016 Concept Alignment and alternatives Gilmours Road The decision to go east rather than west of Narromine brought into focus additional route options in the Burroway to Curban section as an alternative to the 2016 Concept Alignment which followed Gilmours Road for a significant distance, given that the decision had already been made not to go to Curban on the existing rail line via Dubbo and Gilgandra. The 2016 Concept Alignment was therefore modified to accommodate the decision to go east of Narromine and adopted the southern portion of a route identified as Option 101 (yellow line in the accompanying map on this page) and a short section (Option 102) required to get back to the concept alignment. The more easterly part of Option 101, together with Options 111, 112 and 113, were discounted from further assessment on the basis that they all added distance and transit time. Based on community input near Burroway, a new option further to the east of the 2016 Concept Alignment (Option 109 on the map to the right) was considered in the December 2016 MCA as an alternative that would potentially reduce property impacts by following property boundaries and ‘paper’ roads. The assessment found that while Option 109 did provide some benefits in terms Eumengerie Road of reduced property impacts, overall it was inferior to the 2016 Concept Alignment BURROWAY as it was longer, required an additional 8km of greenfield development compared with the concept alignment (94km vs 86km), and presented more issues relating to constructability and environmental impacts. Therefore, the modified 2016 concept alignment remained the preferred option between Narromine and Curban.
December 2016 MCA workshop report
PAGE 64 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 N2N Route Option Analysis: Narromine to Curban route options
Gilmours Road alternative However, in early 2017 ARTC and its technical consultants GHD proposed a refinement of Option 109 that maintained many of the advantages of Option 109 while being shorter and hence had a higher potential as a reasonable alternative to the modified 2016 concept alignment (shown in orange on the map to the right). This option became known as the Gilmours Road Alternative. The Gilmours Road Alternative was discussed with landowners and the community in March 2017 and April 2017 and more formally assessed in the May 2017 MCA workshop. While landowners in general did not support either the modified concept alignment or the Gilmours Road Alternative (identified as option B in the accompanying map on this page), ARTC and its technical consultants considered the latter offered several benefits when compared with both Option 109 and the concept alignment even though it is slightly longer than the 2016 concept alignment. The comparison between Option B and the modified concept alignment are summarised in the comparative analyses found on pages 66 and 67. The benefits of Option B over Option 109 included that it was shorter while still essentially following property boundaries to a greater extent than did the concept alignment. 2016 Concept Alignment Option B also scored slightly higher in the MCA analysis compared to Option 109. ARTC considered that if a superior alignment to the concept alignment were to be found in this section it would more likely be slightly to the east rather than the west of the 2016 concept alignment. Accordingly, in this section, the 2016 concept alignment and Gilmours Road Alternative (Option B) were subsequently used as the western and eastern boundaries in this section of the Narromine to Narrabri Modified 2016 study area determined by the Australian Government, so that more detailed Concept Alignment investigations to locate the final preferred rail corridor in this area could be done. (east of Narromine)
This map is from the May 2017 MCA workshop report showing the Gilmours Road Alternative option. The table graphic to the right reflects the outcome of the May 2017 MCA workshop
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 65 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 N2N Route Option Analysis: Narromine to Curban
PAGE 66 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 N2N Route Option Analysis: Narromine to Curban
Given that a route from Narromine to Curban via Gilgandra was not considered desirable for reasons of time and distance, different alternative routes were then evaluated between Narromine and Curban as outlined on pages 63 to 66, and the comparative results from the 2016 and 2017 route assessments are summarised in the table below.
Modified Concept Narromine to Curban Alignment Eumungerie Rd Gilmours Rd via Gilgandra Narromine to Curban (Option 109) Alternative (Option 101 (east of (east around (Option B) 109)), 112, 113) Narromine) 105km 90km 90km Distance 89km 16km longer 1km longer 1km longer 67 min Service Offering / 78 min 67 min 66 min <1 min Transit time 12 min longer <1 min longer longer $0m Construction Cost +$64m +$37m +$37m (for relativity)
MCA Score +0.43 +0.55 (relative to (Eumungerie (Gilmours Rd - –3.56 Concept Rd – Option Alternative Alignment) 109) – Option B)
Overall
Recommended Check Check
This map is from the May 2017 MCA workshop report showing the Favourable Neutral Unfavourable Highly unfavourable Gilmours Road Alternative option B. The table graphic to the right reflects the outcomes of the 2016 and 2017 MCA workshops.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 67 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 N2N Route Option Analysis: Should the alignment go from Curban via Coonamble?
Another key decision was whether Inland Rail could make use of the northern section of the existing Dubbo–Coonamble rail line, noting that any portion used would require significant upgrading to meet Inland Rail mainline standards.
A key concern was that heading towards Coonamble took Inland Rail further from its destination at Narrabri, making such a route longer and slower than the 2016 concept alignment while still requiring a significant length of greenfield track.
Use of northern section of Coonamble line via Each of these options also included a need for Combara / Coonamble new greenfield sections in order to get back to the concept alignment somewhere north of Curban. The MCA workshop in October 2016 considered a number of options that utilised the northern Accordingly, all of Options 201–205 were discounted section of the Coonamble line (refer to the map on after the first MCA workshop in October 2016. this page). The argument put for these options was that they Option via Gulargambone and Box Ridge Road vs would reduce private property impacts by using Concept Alignment existing track and would likely be cheaper to An option that used a shorter section of the construct than building a new rail line, however, as Coonamble line as far as Gulargambone (Option highlighted on page 23 this is not always the case. 206 – the Box Ridge Road option) remained under An option that used the Coonamble line as far as evaluation until the final May 2017 MCA workshop Combara (Option 201) was assessed during the MCA (refer to the map on this page). workshop but was ruled out as being inferior to the While the Box Ridge Road option performed better concept alignment largely because of increased time than options that used a greater length of the (16 minutes) and added cost $48m) as illustrated in Coonamble line, the transit time benefit (9 minutes) the figure on page 69 and the table on page 70. On and capital cost saving ($35 million) of the 2016 this basis, Options 202 to 205 that went nearer to concept alignment were still significant, and the Coonamble were also determined as being inferior MCA score in the final May 2017 MCA workshop also to the concept alignment and were therefore not favoured the concept alignment. assessed in detail as they all had at least the same Accordingly, the 2016 concept alignment was the time penalty or worse than Option 201, and would all option for the Curban-Gwabegar section, that was incur the same or higher added cost. recommended to the Australian government. Source: Report of October 2016 MCA workshop
PAGE 68 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 N2N Route Option Analysis: from Curban via Coonamble?
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 69 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 N2N Route Option Analysis: from Curban via Coonamble?
2016 Concept Via Combara Via Gulargambone Alignment (Option 201) and Box Ridge Rd Curban to (Option 206) Gwabegar Rd
104km 98km Distance 82km 21km longer 16km longer Service Offering / 77 min 70 min 61 min Transit time 16 min longer 9 min longer $0m Construction Cost +$48m +$35m (for relativity) MCA Score –1.32 - -0.27 (relative to Concept) (at best)
Overall
Recommended Check
Favourable
Neutral
Unfavourable
Highly unfavourable
Curban to Gwabegar/ Baradine Map
PAGE 70 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 N2N Route Option Analysis: Economic costs versus benefits of going via Coonamble
Analysis of options proposed for Inland Rail to go via Coonamble show that even relatively small increases in transit time and distance translate into significant economic disbenefit over the life of Inland Rail.
In November 2017, the Australian Government The assessment estimated that the additional Currently the Coonamble line is used by trains announced the Inland Rail route in this section 39km in distance would produce an economic on a seasonal basis to transport grain. would run on a direct alignment from Curban to disbenefit of approximately $450m relative to the ARTC undertook an analysis of utilisation of the near Baradine. 2017 Inland Rail route, over an evaluation period Coonamble line in the period 01 January 2015 to 2080 (Present Value at a 4% discount rate, In July 2018, another alternative route for this through to 31 December 2019. being the core discount rate in the 2015 Inland section was proposed for Inland Rail to use the Rail Programme Business Case). This analysis is covered in greater detail in Coonamble line and go via or close to Coonamble Appendix 2 on page 105. and then via greenfield development near Based on the additional capital cost of Gwabegar to join the 2017 Inland Rail alignment. $56 million, this represents a benefit cost ratio In response to a request from some stakeholders, of -8.2 meaning there is an economic loss of ARTC has modelled the potential impact on train ARTC analysis of the Coonamble proposal by NSW more than 8 times the value of the investment operating costs (and potential freight rates) of Farmers indicated it would add 24 minutes in in construction. the Coonamble line being upgraded to 25TAL (the transit time and 39 kilometres in distance relative Inland Rail standard) compared with the current to the approved 2017 Alignment, and cost an This assessment is covered in greater detail in stated capability of 20.25TAL. additional $56 million to construct. Appendix 1 on page103. The ARTC modelling shows that upgrading the line ARTC undertook an assessment of the proposed It has been suggested that the volume of grain to 25TAL provides potential cost savings per tonne, alternative route using a benefit-cost approach to and other freight moved on the Coonamble savings that can be realised without negatively examine the impacts of incremental capital cost line warrants Inland Rail following the existing impacting the Inland Rail Service Offering. and added distance to the economic benefits or Coonamble line, particularly as doing so would disbenefits of the Inland Rail route. result in (potentially significant) freight cost The modelling and results are covered in greater savings to farmers and others in the region. detail in Appendix 3 on page 107.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 71 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 N2N Route Option Analysis: Curban to Baradine via Mt Tenandra
Mt Tenandra to Baradine Once the option of going via or close to Coonamble had been discounted, the question remained as to how best to get from Curban to north of Baradine. A route via Mt Tenandra was considered the most appropriate. The alignment between Mt Tenandra and Baradine is constrained by the foothills of the Warrumbungle Range to the east and poor draining areas to the west. Consequently there are few practical corridor options in this section and those that were identified broadly followed the concept alignment. Several alignment refinements on this section were assessed within this section to target better geological conditions. The refinements are shown in the map on this page. The work to identify a Focused Area of Investigation continued through the second half of 2019 and included consultation with landowners.
PAGE 72 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 N2N Route Option Analysis: Gwabegar/Baradine to Narrabri route options
A key outcome of community consultation during 2016 showed there was strong support for a route through the Pilliga Forest, as this would significantly reduce private property impacts.
A number of options were proposed as can be seen on the accompanying map. 2016 Concept Via Pilliga Forest Alignment (Route 403 and 403a) The three MCA workshops held between October 2016 and May 2017 118km demonstrated that the Pilliga Forest Distance 131km options (shown in the accompanying (13km shorter) map) performed strongly relative to Service c. 69 min the Concept Alignment. Offering / c. 75 min (6min 20sec Transit time quicker) Accordingly, a Pilliga Forest option Construction $0m was recommended as part of the -$83m overall Narromine to Narrabri route Cost (for relativity) alignment, based on the Option 403 MCA Score and 403a routes as shown in the (relative to - +3.18 accompanying table. Concept Alignment) During 2020, further route refinement resulted in additional improvements Overall to the alignment and a marginal further reduction of one minute in Recommended Check transit time, to give a total transit time saving of c. 7 minutes, 20 seconds relative to the 2016 Concept Favourable Unfavourable Alignment in this section. Neutral Highly unfavourable
Gwabegar/Baradine to Narrabri Map
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 73 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 N2N Route Option Analysis: Summary of Narromine to Narrabri study area 2017
The Narromine to Narrabri Inland Rail In establishing the Study Area, the study area was jointly announced by Government was able to demonstrate the then Minister for Infrastructure and ARTC had improved on the Service Transport, the Hon Darren Chester MP, Offering by: the Minister for Finance, Senator the + saving time and money with a route Hon Mathias Cormann, and the Federal utilising the Pillaga State Forest Member for Parkes, Mark Coulton MP, that also reduced private property on 30 November 2017. impacts north of Baradine The study area is shown in red on the map + improving reliability and reducing to the right in comparison with the concept risk by going east rather than west alignment which is shown in orange. around Narromine. The study area comprised a combination ARTC was also able to respond of the 2016 concept alignment and positiviely to landowner requests to various alternative options, as outlined in follow property boundaries whenever the tables on previous pages. feasible in the areas around Gilmours The most significant variations Road and Mt. Tendandra. from the concept alignment are that the Throughout 2019 and 2020 the study study area included the eastern option area was narrowed to the Focused around Narromine (with an expanded Area of Investigation (250m–400m 5km-wide study area) and the Pilliga wide) and subsequently to the Forest (Newell Highway) option between preferred final rail corridor detailed Baradine and Narrabri. in the project Environmental Impact The study area was generally around Statement places on public exhibition 2km wide but, in parts was as narrow in December 2020. as 500m.
Narromine to Narrabri Study Area 2017 (red)
PAGE 74 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 N2N Route Option Analysis: Narromine to Narrabri alignment consultation 2016–2020
ARTC conducted JUNE 2016 ARTC Inland Rail staff were asked to attend an annual meeting of local farmers in Coonamble – the meeting passed a resolution stating Inland Rail should travel via Coonamble. extensive rounds of public consultation in JUNE 2016 ARTC Inland Rail held workshops on the alignment options with selected stakeholders (councils, community TO JULY 2016 organisations, state agencies). the Narromine to Narrabri section, particularly in NOV 2016 ARTC Inland Rail held three information sessions in Gilgandra, Narromine and Narrabri regarding the October 2016 MCA outcomes and as input into the December 2016 MCA workshop. the periods March – May 2017 and December 2017 MARCH 2017 ARTC Inland Rail met with >400 landowners (one-on-one and in small meetings) with concentrated effort TO MAY 2017 between February and April 2017. – November 2018 and ongoing from August 2019 NOV 2017 ARTC Inland Rail mailed out >17,000 flyers advertising community meetings held in December and wrote to >600 landowners along the various alignment options considered in the May 2017 MCA advising of the through to October 2020. December meetings. The consultation which DEC 2017 ARTC Inland Rail held four information meetings in Gilgandra, Narrabri, Narromine and Coonamble, reaching focused significantly on between 500 and 600 attendees in total. understanding landowner FEB 2018 ARTC Inland Rail resumed intensive one-on-one landowner meetings within the study area. By the end and community concerns TO JUNE 2018 of June 2018, ARTC Inland Rail had met with more than 300 landowners in the study area. about the 2016 concept SEP 2018 ARTC Inland Rail held four public meetings and four information sessions were held, attended by alignment and route approximately 580 people. options proposed, is NOV 2018 At the request of ARTC Inland Rail, three Community Consultative Committees for the Narromine to Narrabri summarised on the right. project were established by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment, one each for the areas generally around Narromine, Gilgandra and Narrabri.
AUG 2019 Landowner and community consultation on the 150 to 400m-wide focused area of investigation for the TO OCT 2020 Narromine to Narrabri project commenced in August 2019. Landowners were individually consulted and, given the scale of the project, the consultation process continued into 2020. Further consultation with landowners to identify the final preferred 40-65m wide rail corridor was undertaken in the second half of 2020.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 75 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Inland Rail project route selection summaries
Narrabri to North Star
North Star, New South Wales
PAGE 76 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Narrabri to North Star
The existing railway contains a rail corridor that is largely suitable for Inland Rail and during route development no alternative options were identified.
Its alignment, based on grade and minimal curvature, is suitable for Inland Rail. The track is currently a combination of secondary and branch line standard, requiring upgrading to full Inland Rail mainline standards. Further analysis of this section did identify two areas where a deviation from the existing corridor would help improve the overall Inland Rail Service Offering. The two areas are shown on the accompanying map on this page and are summarised as follows:
Camurra deviation option This section includes a short length of greenfield construction at Camurra, near Moree, to bypass a tight curve.
Moree bypass option During the Feasibility Assessment stage, the potential for a bypass of Moree was assessed, principally as a means to address connectivity and severance issues on the existing railway through the Moree urban area. The Feasibility Assessment recommended that the existing alignment through Moree be retained. While route assessment results indicated that the bypass would function similarly to the line through Moree on non-cost criteria, the cost assessment indicated that the bypass option would have a major additional capital cost of approximately $70 million.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 77 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Inland Rail project route selection summaries
North Star to Gowrie
Yarranlea, Queensland
PAGE 78 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 North Star to the NSW/QLD Border
The cross-border connection 2010 IRAS from New South Wales to During the 2010 IRAS, two alternatives were examined. One was a greenfield Queensland has complexities route direct from North Star towards given the existence of railway Yelarbon, crossing the Macintyre River into Queensland and joining the existing corridors on both sides of the Queensland Rail South Western Line border and the need for close to Yelarbon. a crossing of the Macintyre The second alternative was to use the existing disused railway extending north River floodplain. A significant from North Star towards Boggabilla, portion of the existing rail diverging from that line for a much shorter greenfield section crossing the corridor south of the border Macintyre River into Queensland, and is not operational. then joining the existing Queensland Rail South Western Line. The 2010 IRAS concluded that the direct greenfield route was preferred.
2015 IRIG The 2015 IRIG identified the North Star to Toowoomba segment as requiring further investigation, including specifically the crossing of the Macintyre floodplain.
North Star to Border options 2010 IRAS
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 79 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 North Star to the NSW/QLD Border: East versus west route decision
Since 2015 During 2015/16, both eastern and western options were progressed for the purposes of undertaking a more informed assessment of the two distinctly different route options. In order to determine a preferred route, all of the findings from the Feasibility Phase and subsequent and investigations were incorporated into an MCA assessment of the eastern vs western options. The western route was recommended as a result of this analysis (refer to the map on this page and the summary diagrams on pages 80-81). On 14 February 2017, the Australian Government announced that the western option was the preferred study area for Inland Rail. During that time, a widened 7km study area was retained for crossing the Macintyre River. The study for the Macintyre River crossing was further refined in an MCA workshop in May 2017. The western option potentially directly impacts 12 landowners with a sub-option impacting 11. Reference design, further technical work and community consultation continued during 2018 and 2019, particularly in relation to defining the optimum crossing of the Macintyre River, as an input to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project.
PAGE 80 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 North Star to the NSW/QLD Border: east versus west route options
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 81 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 North Star to the NSW/QLD Border: east versus west route decision
East (Base Case) West 73km Distance 65km 8km longer
Service Offering / Transit time - 4m 26s longer
MCA: Greater impact on greenfield stakeholders Stakeholder/ community impact including compromising viability of organic Wide support for Western alignment certified business employing 40 people
Flooding Similar for both options Similar for both options
Reduced impacts on EPBC* and remnant vegetation, Multiple environmental impacts including Environmental (104ha vs 133ha on eastern route) crossing of Yelarbon desert lower property impacts, reduced visual impact
MCA Score 0 +1.2
$0m Construction Cost +$29m/+6.5% (for relativity) Recommended Check
Favourable
Neutral *EPBC – Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Unfavourable
Highly unfavourable
PAGE 82 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 North Star to the NSW/QLD Border western route refinement: 2017–2020
On 14 February 2017, Federal Member for Parkes Design and modelling work continued through 2020 but did not lead to any changes in the The Hon Mark Coulton MP announced, on behalf of selected route. The Environmental Impact Statement for the project was exhibited by the NSW the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, that the Government between 26 August and 6 October 2020. As at December 2020 Inland Rail was still western option would be adopted for this section of considering its purposes to public submissions received on the EIS. Inland Rail. Upon the announcement of the western option being announced as the study area, ARTC conducted further community consultation and additional engineering, flood modelling and environmental studies. The focus of these activities was centred on the complex Macintyre River crossing. These studies were progressed in order to identify a specific corridor across the Macintyre River and a route linking into the existing Queensland Rail South Western Rail Line. By November 2018, ARTC had completed the initial flood modelling of the Macintyre River floodplain, which also incorporates other rivers and catchments, and progressed design of structures to cross the floodplain with minimal impact on landowners. A 100m-wide focused area of investigation for the Macintyre crossing was identified as a key outcome of this work. Throughout 2019 and 2020, ARTC Inland Rail undertook extensive engagement with local stakeholders to address concerns about the crossing of the Macintyre floodplain. ARTC worked with local flood specialists to further refine the Macintyre flood model including taking into account new LiDAR data (commissioned by ARTC) and reviewing North Star to Border western route refinement costings for alternative crossing points.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 83 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 NSW/QLD Border to Gowrie
The 2006 North-South Corridor Study 2015 IRIG identified a wide area in South East The IRIG Report noted further hydrological and geotechnical assessments would be required between North Star and Toowoomba and could result in a final alignment to the east or west of Queensland as part of the Far Western the 2010 IRAS alignment. Sub-Corridor, extending from Goondiwindi, and bounded by Toowoomba and Warwick, towards Brisbane. A more detailed summary and analysis of the options to go via Warwick or via Toowoomba can be found at Appendix 4, together with assessment of a route proposed in Submission No.96(4) to the inquiry into Inland Rail by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
2010 IRAS In the 2010 IRAS, two main route options were considered for Inland Rail in Queensland, one going to Brisbane via Toowoomba and the other via Warwick and Rathdowney. These are shown on the map on this page. While the option via Warwick provided some reduction in transit time, the route via Toowoomba had lower capital cost and significantly higher demand/revenue. The Toowoomba route was therefore preferred. Since the 2010 IRAS, it has also become evident that the Toowoomba option is better positioned to take advantage of economic growth opportunities (such as the developing Charlton-Wellcamp precinct and the InterlinkSQ intermodal development). Border to Brisbane Toowoomba vs Warwick Options 2010 IRAS
PAGE 84 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Route refinement and alternative proposed 2015–2016
Following on from the 2015 IRIG Report, ARTC continued iterative development of a route between Yelarbon and Toowoomba that headed in a generally north-easterly direction via Millmerran, Brookstead and Mount Tyson until it joined the QR West Moreton Line near Kingsthorpe (known as the Base Case route). In late 2015 the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) commissioned SMEC to examine various sections of the Inland Rail route in Queensland (and extending to North Star in NSW) and to consider alternatives. Between Millmerran and the vicinity of Toowoomba, SMEC re-examined alternatives considered in the 2010 IRAS study, together with a new route following the existing narrow gauge line from Inglewood eastwards to the vicinity of Karara, and then adopting a new route generally heading north-east to the vicinity of Gowrie. The SMEC study report was made public in September 2016. ARTC commissioned work to examine this latter route, from Karara northwards through Leyburn. The work that SMEC had done had not addressed vertical alignment, so was little more than a line on paper. ARTC found the route to have no clear advantage over the then Base Case route via Millmerran. In October 2016 the route via Karara became corridor 3 in the 2016–2017 route options assessment. Earlier in 2016 ARTC had continued to refine the Base Case route and determined it would be preferable to bypass Inglewood rather than go through the town, and this refinement was subsequently formally adopted into what became the Base Case (Modified) route.
Route options examined by SMEC
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 85 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 NSW/QLD Border to Gowrie route options: 2016–2017
In October 2016, the Australian Government determined that there would be an assessment of alternative corridors in this section. The four options were: + Corridor 1: Base Case (Modified) from Yelarbon to Gowrie via Millmerran and Mt Tyson + Corridor 2: Base Case (Modified) with a deviation to pass close to Wellcamp and Charlton + Corridor 3: Yelarbon to Gowrie via Karara, Leyburn and Felton + Corridor 4: Yelarbon to Gowrie via Karara, Clifton and Wyreema and utilising the existing rail line close to Warwick. The corridor assessment process was conducted by independent consultants Aurecon and AECOM and overseen by the Yelarbon to Gowrie Project Reference Group (PRG) that was established by the Government in November 2016. The PRG consisted of community and industry representatives with an independent Chair, Mr Bruce Wilson AM, appointed by the Government. The assessment compared three alternative corridors against the Base Case (Modified) corridor on a like-for-like basis. The assessment work was summarised in the Corridor Options Report dated 21 April 2017 and made publicly available by the Australian Government on 21 September 2017. The Australian Government also released on 21 September 2017 the Report of the Chair of the PRG.
Border to Gowrie options 2016–17
PAGE 86 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 The Condamine floodplain and the 2016–2017 route options
A key component in the route option assessment was the crossing of the Condamine Floodplain and associated waterways. The assessment looked at the length of each route that traversed land that would be flooded in 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP)* events and flooded in 10% AEP events. The assessment took into account the length of 1% AEP floodplain that each route was required to traverse. Corridor 2 and Corridor 3 were rated more favourably than the Base Case Modified route (Corridor 1) and Corridor 4. The results are set out on pages 100-101 of the 2017 Corridor Options Report. As with all sections of Inland Rail, the priority task is to design a rail line that is safe. In this section that also means a line that will not cause unacceptable flooding impacts to landowners. The challenge is to do this while meeting the need to find a route as flat and straight as possible (to achieve optimum transit times) and the need for the rail line to meet the performance specifications expected of Inland Rail Border to Gowrie options 2016–17 – length of 1% AEP floodplain crossed (total km) (i.e. the 98% reliability target can be maintained even during floods). * A flood with a 1% AEP has a one in a hundred chance of being exceeded in any year. Currently, the 1% AEP event is designated as having an 'acceptable' risk for planning purposes nearly everywhere in Australia. Cited in Understanding Floods, Office of the Queensland Chief Scientist
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 87 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 NSW/QLD Border to Gowrie corridor options assessment 2017
PAGE 88 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 NSW/QLD Border to Gowrie corridor options assessment 2017
Corridor 3 2017 Corridor Options Report Corridor 1 Corridor 2 Corridor 4 Karara, Leyburn – Yelarbon to Gowrie Base Case Modified Wellcamp-Charlton Warwick & Felton The assessment work included 168km 172km 208km Distance 181km the results from a Multi-Criteria 13km shorter 9km shorter 27km longer Analysis (MCA) conducted 154 min Service Offering / Transit 125 min 135 min across the four corridor options 129min 24 min time (northbound) 4 min saving 6 min longer comparing each against technical, longer environmental and socio-economic No. of agricultural 242 203 156 219 criteria. This work was overseen by properties on alignment an independent Project Reference No. of residences on 35 42 69 170 Group and independent Chair Mr alignment* Bruce Wilson AM. MCA Technical Score 0 –0.126 –0.417 –1.815 The inputs into the MCA are detailed in Chapter 7 of the 2017 Corridor MCA Non-technical Score 0 –0.156 +0.906 –1.22 Options Report and the MCA scores are detailed in Appendix Q to the Overall MCA Score 0 -0.283 +0.490 –3.03 report. $0m Construction Cost +$102m +$285m +$415m (for relativity) Each corridor option also underwent an independent Strategic factors: construction capital cost estimate, Construction in a and was assessed against the constrained corridor at +$20–50 million 0 0 0 Inland Rail Service Offering, Kingsthorpe incorporating rail transit times, Distance to connect to 7.5km 0 0 0 reliability and safety. Wellcamp-Charlton **Cost fo connect to The table on this page summarises +$51 million 0 0 0 the key points from the Corridor Wellcamp-Charlton Options Report. Recommended Check
* Table 100 in the Corridor Options Report Favourable Neutral Unfavourable Highly unfavourable **Cost to connect to Wellcamp-Charlton was calculated using the average cost per km for the Inland Rail route as included in the Corridor Options Report. MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 89 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Forestry route options assessed 2016–2017
In mid-2016, an assessment was undertaken of seven potential ‘forestry routes’ At a meeting of the Yelabon to Gowrie Project Reference Group (PRG) on to the west of the ARTC 2016 Base Case (Modified) route between Inglewood 27 February 2017, the consultants undertaking the assessment were asked and Millmerran. This assessment was at concept level and was undertaken if the ‘forestry route’ option would be considered. The PRG Chair indicated by AECOM and Aurecon on behalf of ARTC as part of ARTC’s testing whether potential ‘forestry routes’ (including the option to follow the ‘Dog Fence’ that options existed that would improve the Inland Rail Service Offering or offered was raised by Goondiwindi Regional Council in September 2016) had been potentially significant cost advantages compared with the Base Case (Modified) ruled out prior to the establishment of the PRG. route developed by ARTC as a result of the IRIG 2015 route. At the meeting on 27 February 2017, representatives of the Millwood Farmers Results of the assessment were presented by ARTC, AECOM and Aurecon on Group asked for comparison of a ‘forestry route to Cecil Plains’ (indicative map 21 September 2016 to representatives of Goondiwindi Regional Council (GRC), line supplied at that time) with the Base Case (Modified) route. In essence, this Toowoomba Regional Council, and the Queensland state DNPWS and Forestry. newly proposed route applied the ‘Dog Fence’ route through to Cecil Plains Prohibitive additional cost and adverse impact on transit time were the major whereupon it was proposed to utilise the disused rail line corridor from Cecil factors ruling out the viability of six of the forestry route options assessed as Plains to join the West Moreton line near Oakey. alternatives with only one option warranting further examination as it was The route proposed by the Millwood Farmers Group formed the basis of the comparable in some parts to the Base Case (Modified) route, and has been further route assessment initiated in 2020 by the Deputy Prime Minister, Hon. adopted in part where it has made sense to do so, particularly in going closer Michael McCormack MP, which is covered in more detail on pages 94 and 95. to the hilly terrain and minimising the impacts on the Commodore Mine. On 21 September 2016, representatives of the Goondiwindi Regional Council (GRC) requested that a new forestry route along the ‘Dog Fence’ through state forest north of Inglewood be examined. An assessment of this route also showed that the proposed route would incur significant additional cost and have an adverse impact on transit time and accordingly the Dog Fence route option was ruled out for further assessment.
PAGE 90 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 NSW/QLD Border to Gowrie: 2017–2019
On 21 September 2017, the Minister for Infrastructure & Transport, The Hon Darren Chester, confirmed the study area for the Border to Gowrie project section. The majority of the study area route (146km) is greenfield while 78km of the 224km project, including the section crossing the Condamine floodplain, lies within existing Queensland Rail corridors. The Australian Government’s decision on the study area took into account the results of the Corridor Options Report, ARTC’s recommendations, and the report from the Chair of the Yelarbon to Gowrie Project Reference Group, Mr Bruce Wilson AM. The study area is generally 2km wide along the route from within which a final rail corridor will be located, based upon engineering design, geotechnical investigations and discussions with landowners. The rail corridor will be approximately 40m wide and in some places up to 65m wide. In December 2017, the Australian Government tasked ARTC with prioritising development of a flood model for the Condamine floodplain upon which it could base its design for crossing the floodplain. On 26 March 2018, the Queensland Coordinator-General declared the Border to Gowrie project to be a “coordinated project” requiring formal approval of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The focused area of investigation for the Border to Gowrie project, including the draft design for Condamine floodplain crossing, was released in November 2018. This was followed by further intensive consultation with the community and their nominated independent expert modellers to calibrate the model and include specific local knowledge into the modelling process The preferred 40 to 60m wide rail corridor was announced at the Darling Downs and Southern Darling Downs Community Consultative Committees in September 2019. A preferred rail corridor will be incorporated into the project Environmental
Impact Statement. B2G Study Area
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 91 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Evolution of ARTC reference design for crossing of the Condamine floodplain
In early 2018 the Australian Government The Southern Darling Downs Community Consultative Committee appointed Dr John Macintosh (Water Solutions) to provide an independent review of the flood modelling and determined that ARTC should undertake as impacts. ARTC assisted with this independent review by providing technical data and funding. a priority task the development of a flood The Millmerran Rail Group and a Millmerran landowner appointed their own technical model and preliminary design solution for consultant, Dr Sharmil Markar, to conduct an independent review of the flood model and design, which ARTC has been supporting. crossing the Condamine floodplain. The 100% Reference Design for the Condamine crossing is complete, and includes six Since that time significant work has been bridges/viaducts with a total length of 6.1km together with circa 500 culverts (900mm – 2.1m in diameter). Comparison to previous indicative structure solutions is set out in undertaken by ARTC’s appointed technical the Table below. advisors to develop the flood model and crossing design in consultation with Year Design Solutions landowners and other key stakeholders. 2016 Phase 1 concept design 3 Bridges 1.8km total bridge length 900 culverts
Oct / Nov 2018 Preliminary crossing design 5 bridges 5.7km total bridge length 540 culverts
Sept 2019 Proposed crossing design 6 bridges (4 locations) 6.1km total bridge length 500 culverts
PAGE 92 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Evolution of ARTC reference design for crossing of the Condamine floodplain
The 100% Reference Design for the Condamine crossing is represented in the accompanying map illustrating the approximate location of the bridges and embankments. ARTC will include the Reference Design for the Condamine Crossing in the draft project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to be submitted to the Office of the Coordinator-General. It is anticipated that the draft EIS will be exhibited for public comment in the second half of 2020.
Legend
Gore Highway
Rail on embankments with culverts
Rail on bridges
Floodplain at 1% AEP
Diagrammatic representation of current Inland Rail Reference Design for crossing of the Condamine floodplain
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 93 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Forestry route options via Cecil Plains assessed 2020
In May 2020 the Deputy Prime Minister, Hon Michael McCormack MP, initiated a review of alternative routes via Cecil Plains in the Border to Gowrie section of Inland Rail. The routes were to be reviewed against the selected Inland Rail route to assess their ability to meet the business case requirements including transit time, reliability, cost competitiveness and availability. A map of the routes assessed is on this page At the request of the Australian Government, ARTC undertook compilation of data and information that would facilitate the review. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, engaged an independent consultant (GTA Consultants) to review the information provided by ARTC and confirm that it was prepared on a 'like-for-like' basis. The information used in the review is summarised in a paper entitled "Information Paper to support assessment of routes for Inland Rail in the Border to Gowrie project section", which is publicly available on the Inland Rail website, and also available at Appendix A to the Inland Rail B2G Alternative Route Comparison Review 2020 available online from inlandrail.gov.au/understanding- inland-rail/publications-and-reports/inland-rail-b2g- alternative-route-comparison-review On 2 November 2020, the Australian Government released the report by GTA Consultants. The table on page 95 summarises the key metrics of the two route options via Cecil Plains in comparison to the current Inland Rail Reference Design route. Map showing Inland Rail Reference Design route and routes via Cecil Plains assessed in 2020
PAGE 94 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Forestry route options via Cecil Plains v current Inland Rail route
Cost and distance comparisons of forestry route options via Cecil Plains with Inland Rail route * Commercial and residential ‘sensitive receptors’ are defined as those commercial Comparator Inland Rail Route Via Cecil Plains + Via Cecil Plains + or residential premises within 200m of the Wellcamp Kingsthorpe notional rail track for each option Distance 206.9km 232.8km 234.7km ** New receptors are those commercial and residential sensitive receptors that are Added distance compared with Inland Rail route +25.9km +27.8km on the Cecil Plains route options but are not Transit Time (Northbound) 02:49:37 03:08:49 03:06:49 also on the existing Inland Rail route.
Transit Time differential (minutes/seconds) Baseline +00:19:12 +00:17:12 *** Economic cost of longer transit time Transit Time (Southbound) 02:40:32 03:00:11 02:59:19 is the freight value of time impacts to end Transit Time differential (minutes/seconds) Baseline +00:19:39 +00:18:47 customers over the period to 30 June 2075 (Net Present Cost). Commercial sensitive receptors* 58 62 65 New sensitive commercial receptors** - 45 53 Residential sensitive receptors 104 134 234 New sensitive residential receptors - 86 191 Total sensitive receptors 162 196 299 Total new sensitive receptors - 244 131 Total length of Condamine floodplain requiring crossing 12.5km 33.0km 33.0km Length of Condamine floodplain crossed requiring 12.5km 16.3km 16.3km structures Construction cost (relativity) Baseline +$281.9 million +303.5 million Maintenance cost (relativity) Baseline +$96.9 million +$104.1 million Operations cost (relativity) Baseline +$93.7 million +$98.1 million Economic cost of longer transit time*** Baseline +$150.7 million +$127.3 million Value of land impacted (relativity) Baseline -$30.7 million -$25.4 million Additional cost via Cecil Plains Baseline +$592.5 million +$607.6 million
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 95 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Inland Rail project route selection summaries
Gowrie to Kagaru
Gatton, Queensland
PAGE 96 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Gowrie to Helidon, Helidon to Calvert and Calvert to Kagaru
In May 2017, the Australian Government announced that the three Inland Rail projects between Gowrie and Kagaru would be delivered through the Public Private Partnership (PPP). The decision followed a market testing process led by the Department of Finance during 2016 and 2017 regarding the appropriate delivery mechanism for Inland Rail.
The three Gowrie to Kagaru projects follow two corridors already protected by the Queensland Government – the Gowrie to Grandchester protected rail corridor and the Southern Freight Rail Corridor. The route for these sections dates back to studies facilitated by the Queensland Government in the 2000–2010 period. Separate studies were undertaken by the Queensland Government in the Gowrie to Calvert section and the Calvert to Kagaru section, and these are addressed separately on the following pages. The three sections from Gowrie to Kagaru are scoped as separate projects in ARTC’s work breakdown structure, which was linked to the original ARTC Inland Rail procurement strategy.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 97 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Gowrie to Helidon and Helidon to Calvert: 2010–2020
2003 Queensland Transport (QT) study – Gowrie to Grandchester (west of Calvert) 2010 IRAS In 2003 Queensland Transport undertook a study for a proposed high speed (160km/h) rail The technical consultants for the 2010 IRAS identified a different alignment between Gowrie and Grandchester through the Toowoomba Range. alignment between Gowrie and Grandchester that was considered to be adequate for Inland Rail’s freight requirement. On completion of the study, this corridor was gazetted by the Queensland Government.
2015 IRIG One of IRIG’s tasks was to determine which of the two alignments through the Toowoomba and Little Liverpool Ranges (QT 2003 or 2010 IRAS) should be adopted for Inland Rail. To support this process, the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads undertook substantial comparative analysis of the two corridors which was reviewed by ARTC. It was concluded that while the QT alignment was superior on non-cost criteria (flood immunity, social/ community impacts, and impacts on Queensland Rail operations), it was difficult to differentiate between the two options on capital cost. The existence of a gazetted and partially acquired corridor for the QT option was also an important consideration. IRIG adopted the protected QT 2003 alignment as the recommended corridor through the Toowoomba and Little Liverpool Ranges. With some minor amendments as at December 2020, that remains the route for Inland Rail between Gowrie and Calvert, a distance of 75km. Toowoomba and Little Liverpool Range options considered by IRIG, 2015. The Gowrie to Grandchester option (blue) which had been reserved by the Queensland Government since 2003, was adopted for Inland Rail
PAGE 98 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Calvert to Kagaru: 2010–2019
2010 TMR Southern Freight Rail Corridor Prior to the completion of the 2010 IRAS, the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) had concluded a study for a new freight line from Calvert to Kagaru, termed the Southern Freight Rail Corridor (SFRC). The corridor identified by the study was subsequently gazetted by the Queensland Government.
2010 IRAS The 2010 IRAS recommended the SFRC alignment be adopted for the Calvert to Kagaru section of Inland Rail.
2015 IRIG The 2015 IRIG adopted the 2010 IRAS recommended route in the Calvert to Kagaru section (i.e. the Queensland Government‘s gazetted SFRC corridor).
Queensland Government position In early 2016, the Queensland Government advised that its preferred strategic alignment for Inland Rail in this area is the
Gowrie to Grandchester alignment preserved in 2003 and the Queensland Government Southern Freight Rail Corridor – adopted for the C2K project SFRC preserved in 2010. Further route refinement – Gowrie to Helidon and Calvert to Kagaru As at December 2020, that remained the position of the Queensland Government. Further minor route refinement is continuing for the Gowrie to Helidon and Calvert to Kagaru projects as reference design activities continue. This process has identified some localised variations to the alignment that will be finalised through the Environmental Impact Statement process with the three projects to progressively release their draft EIS documents between late December 2020 and the middle of 2021, and some minor amendments to the existing gazetted corridors may be required.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 99 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Inland Rail project route selection summaries
Kagaru to Acacia Ridge and Bromelton
Kagaru, Queensland
PAGE 100 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Kagaru to Acacia Ridge and Bromelton: 2006–2017
As with the Melbourne to Albury At the time of the 2010 IRAS, Acacia Ridge was Brisbane’s only intermodal and Albury to Illabo projects, freight terminal on the standard gauge this section is an existing main railway. In planning Inland Rail, it was always recognised that trains utilising line requiring enhancement to Inland Rail and needing to go to the Port accommodate double-stacked of Brisbane would be able to do so via the existing dual gauge rail connection trains and construction of crossing between Acacia Ridge and the port. loops to allow trains to pass safely. 2015 IRIG
At Acacia Ridge, Inland Rail will connect The 2015 IRIG adopted the 2010 IRAS with the Queensland Rail network, including recommended route. an existing dual gauge connection to the Port of Brisbane. 2017: extension to Bromelton In January 2017 a new terminal 2006 North-South Corridor Study was established by SCT Logistics at The 2006 Study assumed that Acacia Ridge Bromelton, south of Kagaru, that would remain the interstate intermodal forms the northern terminal for SCT’s terminal in the medium term and implicitly rail services between Victoria and assumed that the entry to Brisbane for Queensland. Inland Rail would be via the existing There is a large industrial development interstate railway from the south. precinct at Bromelton including other sites that also have potential for 2010 IRAS intermodal terminal development. The adoption of the SFRC for Inland Rail, ARTC owns land at Bromelton. which connects to the interstate railway at The scope of Inland Rail was formally Kagaru, effectively determined the use of amended in 2017 to include the the Kagaru-Acacia Ridge line as the entry to extension to Bromelton, along the Brisbane for Inland Rail. existing ARTC Sydney-Brisbane line. Map showing connection of Inland Rail to the existing Sydney-Brisbane interstate line at Kagaru
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 101 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendices
A01 N2N Route Option Analysis: economic cost of going via Coonamble A02 N2N Route Option Analysis: analysis of freight volumes on the Coonamble line A03 Analysis of potential freight savings from upgrading the Coonamble line A04 Analysis of routes via Warwick A05 Glossary of terms A06 Publicly available reports referenced throughout this document
PAGE 102 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendix 1 – N2N Route Option Analysis: economic cost of going via Coonamble
Even relatively small increases Assessment of proposed alternative route Value of time’ savings for freight users: This relates to the value in transit time and distance via Coonamble: placed by freight customers on having time sensitive freight translate into significant delivered earlier than delivery times offered by alternative ARTC undertook an assessment of the proposed economic disbenefit: options. Lower transit times generates value within the relevant alternative route using a benefit-cost approach supply chain of decreased cost (e.g. through lower inventory In July 2018, an alternative route to examine the incremental capital costs versus requirements) and increased willingness by customers to pay for the Narromine to Narrabri the direct economic benefits or disbenefits of the for an earlier delivery. (N2N) section of Inland Rail via change in scope to Inland Rail. the Coonamble line was proposed, In relation to freight operating costs and ‘value of time’ impacts, In relation to benefits and disbenefits, the as an alternative to the 2017 these are variously determined by the increase in distance or methodology estimates the direct economic Inland Rail route that runs on a transit time, as shown in the table below. Fuel consumption impacts on a range of factors: direct alignment from Curban to is predominantly determined by distance but also has a time- near Baradine. + Capital cost: The additional capital cost related component. relative to the 2017 Inland Rail Concept ARTC analysis of the proposed route Alignment was estimated at $56 million. via Coonamble indicated it would Factor Driven by add 24 minutes in transit time and + Rail freight operating costs: Changes in Distance Transit Time 39 kilometres in distance relative to transit time and route distance have a direct the 2017 Inland Rail route. impact across a broad range of cost factors: Train crewing Fuel consumption This and the following page set out - Train crewing costs – directly affected by the cost impact of this additional transit time Loco and wagon maintenance 39km over the likely first 55 years of Loco and wagon capital - Fuel consumption – influenced by both Inland Rail operations. distance and transit time Track maintenance / network A comparative assessment of operations - Locomotive and wagon maintenance the proposed alternative route Freight ‘value of time’ and the Inland Rail study area - Locomotive and wagon utilisation (capital) can be found in the document – slower transit times reduce rolling stock entitled “Responses by Inland utilisation and require a larger fleet to Rail to questions provided by NSW carry the same amount of freight Farmers, 24 October 2018” which - Track maintenance and network operations is available at inlandrail.artc.com. – a function of distance and train tonnage. au/narromine-to-narrabri-letter- of-response-to-new-south-wales-
farmers-24-october-2018/ MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 103 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendix 1 – N2N Route Option Analysis: economic cost of going via Coonamble
The methodology does not include Results ‘externality’ effects such as The assessment estimated that the additional 39km in distance would produce an economic disbenefit of approximately changes in safety (accident rates) $450m relative to the 2017 Inland Rail Concept Alignment, over an evaluation period to 2080 (Present Value at a 4% or greenhouse gas emissions, discount rate, being the core discount rate in the 2015 Inland Rail Program Business Case). This represents a benefit cost although these are included in the ratio of -8.2 meaning there is an economic loss of more than 8 times the value of the investment in construction. broader Inland Rail Business Case on a whole of program basis. Disaggregated results are below: Unit rates used in the modelling Item Present Value $m are from ARTC’s standard rail operating cost model used by ARTC Capital cost 56.14 for analysing above rail operations. ‘Value of time’ savings are derived Benefits (disbenefits) using values from ARTC’s demand modelling that are also used Freight operating cost increases across the ARTC network. Train crewing -6.7 Unit rates are multiplied by the annual number of trains Fuel -102.9 (consistent with the Inland Rail Locomotive and wagon maintenance -30.5 Business Case, including a transition from 1800m to 3600m Locomotive and wagon capital -5.5 trains after 2039-40) and the Track maintenance / network operations -157.8 incremental change in either distance or time, as relevant to Subtotal -302.3 the specific factor. Present values of the future stream of benefits / disbenefits are calculated over Freight value of time impacts -99.3 an evaluation period to 2080 at a Total benefits (disbenefits) -401.7 4% discount rate, being the core Net present value -457.8 discount rate in the 2015 Inland Benefit Cost Ratio -8.2 Rail Program Business Case.
PAGE 104 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendix 2 – Analysis of freight volumes on the Coonamble line
The purpose of this brief section is Coonamble line: current status and use Grain freight and number of trains to demonstrate that upgrading of The Coonamble-Dubbo rail line is part of the ARTC undertook an analysis of utilisation of the New South Wales Country Regional Rail Network. Coonamble line in the period 01 January 2015 the existing line is both more cost The Country Regional Network (CRN) is owned through to 31 December 2019. The analysis effective and delivers the benefits by Transport for NSW and is operated and included examining loaded grain tonnages on maintained by rail infrastructure manager, John a quarterly basis aligning with grain harvest that would be achieved by routing Holland Rail (JHR), under a 10-year contract that seasons. In examining the figures in the Inland Rail via or close to Coonamble commenced in January 2012. accompanying Table on the following page, it should be borne in mind that the figures are Currently the Coonamble line is used by trains on without incurring the $450 million loaded gross tonnes which includes the weight a seasonal basis to transport grain. economic disbenefit of doing so of wagons. As at December 2019, the 2018 map of the The ARTC analysis shows that bulk grain It has been suggested that the volume of grain and Country Regional Network Capability available movements in the five quarters from 01 July 2016 other freight moved on the Coonamble line warrants on the John Holland Rail website showed that to 30 September 2017 totalled 437,804 loaded Inland Rail following the existing Coonamble line, the Coonamble line had a capability of 20.25TAL gross tonnes. This represents 51% of the total particularly as doing so would result in (potentially (meaning it could cater for trains with loads loaded gross tonnes moved along the Coonamble significant) freight cost savings to farmers and others equating to 20.25 tonnes per axle load). However, line in five years (20 quarters). in the region. ARTC understands that the rail on the line is 50–53kg/metre rail, which is suitable for 25TAL In terms of numbers of trains loaded at trains subject to the load bearings of any bridges Coonamble, the Table also shows there were an and culverts. average of two trains per week over the five years CY2015 to CY2019, inclusive of both bulk and The New South Wales Government, through containerised traffic. Transport for NSW, in 2017 also completed a $20.3 million upgrade program to the Coonamble There have been major year-to-year fluctuations -Dubbo line that replaced 66,000 life-expired reflecting the variations in harvest volumes, timber sleepers with modern, long-life steel from a maximum of 4.5 trains per week during sleepers, provided an additional 17,000 tonnes of the bumper 2017 year to only a handful of trains ballast and resurfaced 95km of track. during CY2019.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 105 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendix 2 – Analysis of freight volumes on the Coonamble line
Bulk Grain Tonnages Coonamble (including Gular and Armatree) - interfacing to the ARTC network at Troy Junction
01 January 2015 – 31 December 2019
Loaded Gross Tonnes (‘000s)
Domestic (direct) 483
Staged via Sub-terminal or regional location (may proceed to Domestic or Export) 207
Export (direct to Port) 166
TOTAL 856
Annual Average (over 5 years) 171
Number of Trains ex Coonamble
Calendar Year Bulk Containerised Total Average per week
2015 11 77 88 1.7
2016 70 59 129 2.5
2017 163 70 233 4.5
2018 24 29 53 1.0
2019 6 6 0.1
Total 274 235 509
Annual average 55 47 102 2.0
PAGE 106 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendix 3 – Potential freight savings from upgrading the Coonamble line
Upgrading the Coonamble line to In a media release on 29 October 2019, the + In the case of Coonamble to Newcastle services, Deputy Prime Minister called for proposals for increasing train length from current (typically 25 tonne axle load (TAL) offers the strategic business cases under the two-year circa 700 metres) to 1300 metres will involve potential for reduced train operating Inland Rail Interface Improvement Program. One additional locomotive requirements, which such business case that the Government has diminishes the cost savings costs which could potentially be announced under the Program is an investigation + services to Manildra are currently heavily length of an upgrade to the Gilgandra-Coonamble line. passed on in reduced freight rates. restricted because of yard / siding constraints The analysis in this route history document is at Manildra, such that the typical train length is separate to that business case. circa 370 metres. ARTC has modelled the potential impact on train The analysis in the table on the following page operating costs (and potential freight rates) of demonstrates that the potential benefit in terms of the Coonamble line being upgraded to 25 TAL reduced per tonne freight rates for grain growers (the Inland Rail standard) compared with the who load grain trains at Coonamble lies in the current stated capability of 20.25 TAL. Coonamble-Dubbo line being 25 TAL capable, hence The ARTC modelling shows the following offering potential operating cost savings that in potential savings per tonne. However, it must theory may be passed on to growers. It is possible be noted that these results are from ARTC that the cost of production inputs, such as fertiliser, modelling based on certain assumptions as may also be reduced although this was not modelled set out below and may not replicate real world by ARTC. freight rate impacts. They do, however, provide Inland Rail will not make a material difference to the a useful guide. distance travelled by freight trains from Coonamble The following factors should be noted in respect to various destinations, whether it be Manildra, of potential per tonne savings which are Sydney or Newcastle. However, if Inland Rail were to indicated in the table on page 108: go via Coonamble, trains headed north to Brisbane or south to Melbourne would be required to take an + small trains have a higher dollar per tonne extra 24 minutes as Coonamble lies west of the more cost structure to begin with, so there is direct route required for Inland Rail. greater potential for savings given the higher initial cost base As such, the greatest benefit to grain growers remains likely to be realised from upgrading of the Coonamble line to a 25 TAL capability rather than to full Inland Rail specifications.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 107 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendix 3 – Potential freight savings from upgrading the Coonamble line
Coonamble Coonamble Coonamble - Coonamble - Coonamble - Coonamble - - Newcastle - Newcastle Newcastle Newcastle Manildra Manildra (longer trains) (longer trains)
Locomotives 20.25 TAL 25 TAL 20.25 TAL 25 TAL 20.25 TAL 25 TAL
Length Limit 700m 700m 1300m 1300m 380m 380m
One-way distance 478km 478km 478km 478km 355km 355km
Annual round-trip services 61 61 61 61 61 61
Train Length 659m 656m 1131m 1190m 359m 365m
Freight cost $ per tonne excl wagon $23.16 $19.72 $18.93 $16.84 $29.20 $23.79 capital
Potential $ savings per tonne at 25TAL $3.44 (14.9%) $2.09 (11%) $5.41 (18.5%)
PAGE 108 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendix 4 – Analysis of routes via Warwick
In the determination of Inland Rail’s route one of the major issues addressed was the approach to Brisbane – should Inland Rail proceed via Toowoomba, or should it follow a route via Warwick?
This question was examined in depth in the 2010 Inland Rail Alignment Study, which recommended in favour of the route via Toowoomba, and concluded that a route via Warwick was inferior on a number of bases, including higher capital cost and a reduced ability to attract regional freight. The 2015 IRIG report endorsed routing Inland rail via Toowoomba, noting that doing so would also provide the opportunity to use the Gowrie to Grandchester and Southern Freight Rail corridors protected by the Queensland Government. The 2010 IRAS examined two broad sets of options in detail: Toowoomba route – a new corridor from Inglewood to near Toowoomba, and then a new Gowrie to Grandchester link; before joining to the (then proposed) Southern Freight Rail Corridor from Rosewood to Kagaru. Warwick route – a new greenfield route via Warwick to the existing standard gauge Sydney-Brisbane line between Rathdowney and Bromelton requiring protection of new rail corridors.
Toowoomba and Warwick route options, IRAS 2010, p36
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 109 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendix 4 – Analysis of routes via Warwick
Major range crossings in the vicinity of Warwick and Toowoomba were investigated to traverse the range and it was found that in all cases steep gradients (1 in 60), and extensive tunnelling and large viaducts would be required.
The 2010 IRAS considered a large number of route options via either Toowoomba or Warwick, shown on the map at right. All the routes shown on this map were assessed. The Lead Technical Consultant for the 2010 IRAS expended substantial resources in investigating multiple alignments for the descent from the range east of Warwick. These alignments included tunnelling ranging in length from 11km to 19km, and viaducts totalling up to some 30km in length. Several options included spirals. The extent of tunnels and viaducts on all the Warwick routes considerably exceeded the comparable figures for the routes via Toowoomba.
PAGE 110 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendix 4 – Analysis of routes via Warwick
2010 IRAS assessment of the Toowoomba and Warwick routes indicated that The results of the 2010 IRAS analysis were clear cut that the Warwick route was an the Toowoomba route was clearly the superior option inferior option: The transit time advantage of the Warwick route Capital cost: Freight demand and revenue: was more than offset by its higher capital cost The best route via Warwick would incur a The Toowoomba route would have higher demand and reduced demand and revenue. This time construction cost disadvantage of 25% compared and revenue. Regional freight demand would be advantage found by the IRAS work has since been with route via Toowoomba ($453 million at the 10.8 million net tonnes more than on the Warwick reduced by refinement of the Toowoomba route to time of the study in 2010). route in 2030, principally as a result of coal traffic between 2 and 6 minutes (at best). but including agricultural produce. The Warwick route would require 24km of long Both the financial and economic analyses showed viaducts and three spirals to meet the maximum A route via Warwick would lead to a loss of access that the Toowoomba route was superior. ruling grade specification. fees of $14.9 million p.a. by 2030. Modification of the Toowoomba route resulting from the 2017 Corridor Options study (see pages Transit time: Financial and economic performance: 86-89) did not change the relative performance of the two routes. If anything, it increased the As a result of its shorter length - a saving in route The 2010 IRAS estimated that the relative advantage of the Toowoomba route as it length of 33km - the Warwick route was assessed Toowoomba option would deliver significantly improved transit time in this section by 4.5 minutes at the time to have a transit time advantage of better financial and economic performance compared with the 2016 Base Case route. 19 minutes. than the Warwick route. In summary, the 2010 IRAS found that, although Since the 2010 IRAS, however, refinement of The economic present value at the time of the the Warwick route would be slightly faster than the route through the Toowoomba Range as 2010 IRAS was estimated to be approximately the Toowoomba option, the Warwick option was referenced on page 98, has resulted in a 13 $400 million better for the Toowoomba option, significantly more expensive, would generate minute time reduction on the Toowoomba route, and financial performance was estimated at $230 lower freight demand and demonstrate inferior so the net time saving of the Warwick route would million better1 financial and economic performance than the now be in the order of 6 minutes at the most, and Toowoomba option. likely less if subject to detailed modelling.
1 Present values in 2010, 7% real economic discount rate, 8.4% nominal financial discount rate, 2030 operational start
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 111 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendix 4 – Analysis of routes via Warwick
In 2019 and 2020, there have been further proposals from interested parties for routes via Warwick2
2019–20 Warwick proposals The routes proposed would, in summary + As was concluded in the 2010 IRAS, the terrain + The surface altitude along the reference traversed by proposed alternatives through the alignment reaches a maximum of around 640 + diverge from the currently preferred Inland Main Range east of Warwick is significantly more metres compared with around 1000 metres Rail alignment near Inglewood challenging than a route via Toowoomba. for the two alternative options via Warwick. + traverse the alignment of the existing + The profiles at right show three cross-sections + Further, the descent from the range toward QR railway line from Inglewood to west depicting the vertical alignment of terrain the coast is much more precipitous in the of Warwick traversed by the currently preferred reference Warwick options, as can be seen quite clearly + utilise a new greenfield alignment to the north alignment via Toowoomba in comparison with in the relative profiles in on page 113 and 114. of Warwick, then east through the Main Range other routes via Warwick to Tamrookum or in the Cunninghams Gap / Spicers Gap area, Peak Crossing. before heading either east to join the Sydney -Brisbane line at Tamrookum or north east to Peak Crossing on the Calvert to Kagaru section of Inland Rail
2 For example, Senate Committee Inquiry into the Management of the Inland Rail project, 96.4 Supplementary to Submission 96, Mr Kevin Loveday
PAGE 112 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendix 4 – Analysis of routes via Warwick
Inglewood to Kagaru – Current Inland Rail reference design route
Inglewood to Peak Crossing (alternative route option via Warwick)
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 113 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendix 4 – Analysis of routes via Warwick
Inglewood to Tamrookum (alternative route option via Warwick)
PAGE 114 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendix 4 – Analysis of routes via Warwick
2019–20 Warwick proposals (continued) Tunnelling projects are complex and include a large In brief the analysis found that due to the length number of risks that must be managed, especially of tunnels and viaducts required, and the possible The two ‘new’ alternative proposals via in difficult terrain. Safe Work Australia has identified inclusion of spirals to achieve acceptable grades, Warwick are not so new in reality as each is 18 risks common to projects using tunnel boring potential alignments would be very expensive to very similar to routes analysed in some depth machines that require careful management, construct and would be operationally challenging. during the 2010 IRAS as part of the examination reinforcing the complexity of the activity.* of routes via Warwick. Five route options were assessed from Warwick to Tamrookum. The option of an alternative in the Specifically, the 2010 IRAS: Warwick to Tamrookum or Bromelton eastern section of the route heading north-east to + examined an alternative route along the On the greenfield alignment to the north and east Bromelton was also assessed. Inglewood to Warwick railway (route D10 of Warwick and through the Main Range, the 2010 The ‘easiest’ route from Warwick to Tamrookum identified in 2010 IRAS Working Paper 2) IRAS found that the topographic constraints posed an enormous challenge to identifying a suitable nevertheless had approximately 11.2km of + evaluated multiple routes through the alignment for a freight railway. tunnels and 28km of viaducts. Other options main range to the east of Warwick in the had between 12km and 23km of tunnelling, and Cunninghams Gap area The 2010 IRAS undertook a detailed pre-feasibility between 14km and 28km of viaducts. comparison of multiple alternatives through the + examined various alternatives for eastward range in the Cunninghams Gap area. A number of By comparison, the Inland Rail reference design connections to the Sydney-Brisbane railway maps were prepared as part of this work but were from Gowrie to Kagaru as at December 2020 has between Rathdowney and Bromelton (including not necessarily included in either final 2010 IRAS or 8.1km of tunnelling and 19.7km of viaducts. routes D33C5 and D34C5 in 2010 IRAS Working the Working Papers. One example of this is the map Paper 2 that is only about 2km from the route in Figure 4 prepared for Working Paper 2. proposed in Senate Inquiry Submission 96.4)
Inglewood to Warwick In relation to the existing Inglewood to Warwick railway line, the vertical (gradient) and horizontal (curvature) alignment standards on this line fall far short of the Inland Rail specification.
This line would require a complete rebuild, 2010 IRAS Alternative with extensive deviations, to meet Inland Rail alignments – Main Range, alignment standards. East of Warwick
Figure 4: 2010 IRAS Alternative alignments - Main Range, East of Warwick
*Safe Work Australia Guide For Tunnelling Work November 2013 MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 115 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendix 4 – Analysis of routes via Warwick
Need for corridor reservation, environmental assessment and In summary, extensive analysis undertaken since 2010 has indicated community consultation that the Warwick option remains a substantially inferior option to the Toowoomba route. It is also important to note that no Warwick route option has been subject to community consultation or environmental assessment. The minor transit time saving of the Warwick option is insufficient to outweigh the overwhelming disadvantages of the route. An alternative option via Warwick would require the development of a viable reference design, and identification and protection of new corridors through The Warwick option would: areas of very high environmental significance. + have a significantly higher capital cost In relation to the route adopted for Inland Rail from Gowrie to Kagaru, + pose extreme engineering challenges in finding a feasible route through these processes have been under way for 20 years (noting that Inland Rail the range east of Warwick (noting that the more straightforward route has adopted existing protected corridors previously established by the through Toowoomba is itself posing a considerable challenge) Queensland Government). + have inferior financial and economic performance to the recommended Inland Rail itself has undertaken seven years of detailed engineering, Toowoomba option as it would bypass major freight traffic originators in environmental assessment and community consultation within the previously the Toowoomba area and would not serve traffic from the QR Western gazetted corridors. line heading to Brisbane For a new route via Warwick (if a viable alignment could be found), these + if adopted now, add at least five years to the delivery schedule for processes even if fast-tracked could be expected to add five years to the Inland Rail delivery schedule for Inland Rail for no appreciable benefit.
PAGE 116 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendix 5 – Glossary of terms
BILATERAL AGREEMENT: DIRD: REFERENCE DESIGN: An agreement between the Australian Government Department of Infrastructure and Regional Drawings and technical specifications for the and a state government providing consent for Development (as at late 2019, the Department infrastructure required to deliver the ARTC Inland ARTC to deliver Inland Rail in that state. Bilateral of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Rail program which informs approvals processes, Agreements have been signed with the State Development). land acquisition and detailed design. ‘Reference Governments of Victoria, New South Wales and Design’ is sometimes used in this context but ENHANCEMENT: Queensland. Feasibility Design is the preferred term. Works undertaken to allow an existing section of BROWNFIELD: main line railway to accommodate double-stacked GREENFIELD: A project or section whereby development and container trains, by increasing vertical and horizontal Term used to refer to railway construction on a new delivery is substantially, if not all, within an existing clearances. Improvements such as additional loops route or alignment. This includes construction of new rail corridor. to allow trains to pass, may also be provided. track within a protected or gazetted rail corridor. CO-ORDINATED PROJECT: EIS: IRAS: Declaration of a section of Inland Rail as a co- Environmental Impact Statement, a document Inland Rail Alignment Study: Completed in 2010, this ordinated project is a step in the Queensland required for formal project planning and is sometimes referred to as the 2010 Study. Government’s approval process, leading to the environmental assessment by State and Federal MCA: specification of requirements for an Environmental Governments. Multi-Criteria Analysis. Impact Statement.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 117 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-00020-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendix 5 – Glossary of terms
MTPA: STATE SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE (SSI): STUDY AREA/FOCUS AREA/RAIL CORRIDOR: Million tonnes per annum. The NSW Government has identified certain types The Inland Rail Implementation Group’s report in 2015 endorsed a Base Case route generally PROGRAM/PROJECT/SECTION: of development that are SSI; Inland Rail falls into following the alignment identified in the 2010 IRAS. The word Program applies to the entirety of Inland this category. ARTC Inland Rail can elect whether Since then, the process of route and alignment Rail from Melbourne to Brisbane. The Program is to make an SSI application for each project in New refinement followed by ARTC involves initial divided into a number of projects or sections, for South Wales. The NSW Department of Planning and technical studies and stakeholder consultation to example from Tottenham (Melbourne) to Albury, Environment has prepared standard Secretary’s define a study area generally between 2km and Albury to Illabo and so on. A list of the projects and Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) 5km wide. This has then led to further studies and the acronyms used to identify them for critical state significant infrastructure projects in consultation to refine the alignment to a focused is on page 5. consultation with other government agencies. See planning.nsw.gov.au/Assess-and-Regulate/ area of investigation typically 100–400 metres wide. SERVICE OFFERING: Development-Assessment/Planning-Approval- Lastly there will be further refinement to a final rail The service offering sets out Inland Rail’s Pathways/State-Significant-Infrastructure corridor 40–65 metres wide. The final rail corridor performance specification in terms of reliability, is subject to state planning approval processes. price, transit time and availability. Refer to page 13. UPGRADE: Works undertaken to bring an existing section of railway, typically a secondary route, to Inland Rail’s mainline standard through the installation of new ballast, sleepers and rail.
PAGE 118 | | MELBOURNE MELBOURNE TO TO BRISBANE BRISBANE INLAND INLAND RAIL RAIL ROUTE ROUTE HISTORY HISTORY 2006 2006––20202020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendix 6 – Publicly available reports referenced throughout this document
2006 North-South Rail Corridor Study Report April 2017 Yelarbon to Gowrie Corridor investment.infrastructure.gov.au/files/north_south_rail_corridor_study/ Options Report executive_report.pdf s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-australia/65491212cf 7bddbc07a4a383c70296254dacb8c8/documents/attachments/000/097/771/ 2010 Inland Rail Alignment Study (IRAS) Report original/yelarbon_to_gowrie_corridor_options_report_rev2_-_main_report_. s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-australia/ pdf?1575864724 a357833a263428a41eb13dfa70e9e638c33b4a1c/documents/ attachments/000/029/853/original/IRAS_2010_(1).pdf?1448784942 April 2017 Yelarbon to Gowrie Project Reference Group Report from the Chair 2015 Inland Rail Implementation Group (IRIG) Report inlandrail.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/final_y2g_prg_chair_report_to_ inlandrail.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/inland-rail-implementation- minister_with_attachments.pdf group-report_0915.pdf May 2017 Narromine to Narrabri 2015 ARTC Inland Rail Program Business Case MCA workshop report s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-australia/5de589db79424 s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-australia/ a8f1344e2e42e171fc205104b99/documents/attachments/000/029/855/original/ f014a2216ce67f25fb026a2f902e90d61e868e79/documents/ InlandRailBusinessCase.pdf?1448785278 attachments/000/077/114/original/NSW_N2NMCAWorkshopReport_May2017. pdf?1535500209 October 2016 Narromine to Narrabri MCA workshop report November 2017 Narromine to s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-australia/ Narrabri Options Report a673088c7b5b97634613d2f0697b91bf0783352c/documents/ s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-australia/ attachments/000/077/116/original/NSW_N2NMCAWorkshopReport_Oct2016. f6c489e188a03e89a9592919eea085554c2a25a9/documents/ pdf?1535500180 attachments/000/067/551/original/N2N_Options_Report_Nov_2017. pdf?1512003169 December 2016 Narromine to Narrabri MCA workshop report March 2018 Narromine to Narrabri Route and Alignment Development Summary s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-australia/48122c32b7a625 Presentation ea6ded1476d8c692b4dd4c644d/documents/attachments/000/077/115/original/ s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-australia/3fa09b541f511d9 NSW_N2NMCAWorkshopReport_Dec2016.pdf?1535500196 e628f90cade2c15cfa265f5ff/documents/attachments/000/077/113/original/N2N_ route_and_alignment_development_summary.pdf?1525847835
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 119 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-00020-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Appendix 6 – Publicly available reports referenced throughout this document
October 2018 ARTC Response to questions from NSW Farmers' Association inlandrail.artc.com.au/13269/documents/90807/download
Narromine to Narrabri Phase 2 Feasibility Assessment – Stage 3 Focus Area Definition: Part 1 inlandrail.artc.com.au/narromine-to-narrabri-phase-2-feasibility-assessment-stage- 3-focus-area-definition-part-1/
Narromine to Narrabri Phase 2 Feasibility Assessment – Stage 3 Focus Area Definition: Part 2 inlandrail.artc.com.au/narromine-to-narrabri-phase-2-feasibility-assessment-stage- 3-focus-area-definition-part-2/
Narromine to Narrabri Phase 2 Feasibility Assessment – Stage 1 Route Refinement inlandrail.artc.com.au/narromine-to-narrabri-phase-2-feasibility-assessment-stage- 1-route-refinement/
Narromine to Narrabri Phase 2 Feasibility Assessment – Stage 2 Focus Area Definition inlandrail.artc.com.au/narromine-to-narrabri-phase-2-feasibility-assessment-stage- 2-focus-area-definition/
02 November 2020 Inland Rail B2G Alternative Route Comparison review inlandrail.gov.au/understanding-inland-rail/publications-and-reports/inland-rail-b2g- alternative-route-comparison-review
PAGE 120 | | MELBOURNE MELBOURNE TO TO BRISBANE BRISBANE INLAND INLAND RAIL RAIL ROUTE ROUTE HISTORY HISTORY 2006 2006––20202020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 Inland Rail office locations (as at December 2020)
Brisbane (Head Office) Gatton Office Toowoomba Office Goondiwindi Office ARTC Inland Rail ARTC Inland Rail ARTC Inland Rail ARTC Inland Rail Level 16, Suite 5-6, 143–145 Margaret Street, 116 Marshall Street, 180 Ann Street 47 North Street, PO Box 3093, Goondiwindi QLD 4390 QLD Brisbane QLD 4001 Gatton, QLD 4343 Toowoomba QLD 4350
Sydney Office Parkes Office Wagga Wagga Office ARTC Inland Rail ARTC Inland Rail ARTC Inland Rail NSW Level 15, 290 Clarinda Street 20 Station Place, 60 Carrington Street Parkes NSW 2870 PO Box 2150, Sydney NSW 2001 Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650
Melbourne Office Seymour Office VIC ARTC Inland Rail ARTC Inland Rail 39 Bakehouse Road, 90 Delatite Road PO Box 3093, Kensington, Seymour VIC 3660 Melbourne VIC 3031
During 2021, Inland Rail is planning to open offices in Narromine, Narrabri, Gilgandra and Albury, with potentially other locations as and when may be required.
MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 | PAGE 121 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 FURTHER INFORMATION: artc.com.au inlandrail.artc.com.au infrastructure.gov.au inlandrail.gov.au
Additionally you may seek answers to specific questions at:
1800 732 761 [email protected]
PAGE 122 | MELBOURNE TO BRISBANE INLAND RAIL ROUTE HISTORY 2006–2020 0-0000-900-PCS-00-FS-0002 IR_805