News & Discussion: Regional Transport

[Heardy_101]

The main problem with the Barossa line is obviously the condition of the line (currently it barely rates at a Class 3, TSR for freight is roughly 50kph and Pax roughly 60kph), and it's owner GWA. It is of my understanding that neither the Govt nor GWA want any more trains to go past Gawler Central (bar the more recent Concordia/Gawler East extension). Any passenger train would need to either connect at Gawler Central or continue along to Adelaide in quicker than via road.

[Heardy_101]

I have been allowed to post an edited version of the costings report. I received this a few months ago; it is now public knowledge as the full report has been submitted to the various bodies. Cheers.

Initial costings (Mid North Rail Project)
General construction of a line from point A to B in a rural area is $1.2 million per km.
This figure will be greater if Class D or greater culvert/bridge construction is required.
This figure will be greater if property acquisition include any dwellings.
As for the Mid North Rail Project the following budgets have been advised:

Bowman to Brinkworth Lease (Full length of corridor will not be relayed)

Acquisition of land Not Required (current alignment suitable)

Track bed construction 60% intact
Ballast recovery 0 %
Sleeper recovery 0%
Rail recovery 0%
Forecast from initial report $812,000 per km Class 1C 25 tal

Gawler River to Burra Lease

Acquisition of land Not required (current alignment suitable)
Track bed Construction 90% intact
Ballast recovery 70%
Sleeper recovery 20%
Rail recovery 95% (for initial class rating
Forecast from initial report $388,000 per km Class 2 21 tal
Hamley Bridge to Balaklava Lease
Acquisition of land Not required (current alignment suitable)
Track bed construction 75% intact
Ballast recovery 55%
Sleeper recovery 5%
Rail recovery 0% (95% for class 3 rating)
Forecast from initial report $ 761,000 per km Class 1C 25 tal
Forecast from initial report $ 293,000 per km Class 3 19 tal

Roseworthy to Kapunda Lease

Acquisition of land To Fords - Not required (current alignment suitable)
Fords to Kapunda ?? (alternate alignment may not be possible)

Track bed construction 85% (using existing alignment)
Ballast Recover 70%
Sleeper Recovery 10%
Rail recovery 95% (for initial class rating)
Forecast from initial report $ 404,000 per km Class 2 21 tal (using existing alignment)

[Heardy_101]

As of now I am going to be making a very open and public campaign highlighting the need for better public transport services in regional South Australia (not just rail but it will be a focal point).

While the "Consortium" projects are still happening, pending Government approval, the aim will be to create public awareness and support for better public transport in South Australia, in particular regional areas, in the hope that the Government of South Australia (note the words "OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA", not "Adelaide') will wake and realise that by ignoring such issues, doesn't mean it will go away.

I will also be using my own forum - Railways Australia (http://www.railwaysaustralia.net), complete with a subsection for this campaign, to post regular updates as well as the new Facebook page I have created (http://www.facebook.com/RegionalTransportInSA)

I will be sending in a VERY detailed and long report of the matter to a few key MPs as well as going public (to the various media outlets) in order to gain momentum, support and to make sure the issue is not ignored.

I have sent this to numerous State and Federal MPs, as well as various medai outlets. Be warned, it's 11 pages long.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing this because I, like a few associates of mine, am very worried about the general direction of Public Transport in South Australia, in particular rail.

Not since the late 1980’s and in a couple of cases the very early 1990s, has SA seen any form of passenger rail beyond the boundaries of the Adelaide Metro Railway lines. These included Mount Gambier and Bridgewater to the South East, and the Iron Triangle (Pt. Pirie, Pt. Augusta and Whyalla) to the North. Areas such as the Mid North and Barossa have not seen services for even longer, the last of those services being in the 1960s-1970s.

I, along with many others of late, have been campaigning for the return of Regional Rail in South Australia, or, at the very least, better and more frequent Public Transport. Not counting the ongoing efforts to revitalise and modernise the current network (Electrification, new railcars, better and new infrastructure), the current Government’s attitude towards rail, in particular outside of Adelaide, has been poor. I do however, give them full credit for the work that has been achieved, planned and proposed over the last few years however prior to this, it was as though they did not care.

One only needs to look back in the history books to 16/12/1968, when the last Angaston, and subsequently the last Barossa, passenger train ran. The local residents fought tooth and nail for the rail link to remain open. They expressed their concerns and disgust in letters to local and Adelaide newspaper editors; held a public meeting with 88 people attending and the Government was petitioned with no less than 2300 signatures. To this day, the residents and subsequently the residents of South Australia are still fighting for the return of passenger services.

South Australia once had an extremely rich South Australian Railways heritage with the SAR employing up to 1 million people from its inception in 1854 to its demise, and sale, in 1975. The SAR also operated 830 stations and sidings with but a few remaining, after successive waves of demolition, the transition to Diesel, the sale and rationalisation of the SAR under the Australian National Railways Commission (ANR), foreign ownership and developers interests or lack thereof. Railway Infrastructure is finite, and once destroyed is irreplaceably and unrepairabley lost for future generations. It is essential that the Railway heritage in this state is preserved for these future generations so they can better understand the past and subsequently respect and appreciate the present.

Preservation also provides future generations with the heritage that will enable them to capitalise on the rich and unique South Australian railway heritage, and thus generate income as heritage and historic places are an investment and become more and more valuable as time goes by.

Questions are still being asked as to why the Government will not restore these services and little answers have been provided. To further rub salt into the wounds, the line from Nuriootpa – Angaston was torn up a few years ago and replaced with a Cycle Path “Rail Trail” (which seems to be the common practice of the SA Government and Local Councils these days). The Railway Station at Nuriootpa was also demolished, despite attempts from locals to have it restored. This was undertaken by Genesee & Wyoming Australia (GWA).

It is also worth noting that during a campaign regarding the Barossa Railway Line, many others also expressed concerns that a service should, and needs to be, (re) introduced to Mt. Barker in the Adelaide Hills. Mt. Barker is the states fastest growing areas outside Adelaide. It was also brought to attention during the campaign than when Bridgewater services were cut back to Belair in it was like the lifeline of the region had been cut overnight. It was also discussed that other reasons for this service to be reintroduced are the benefits and need of a “Park ‘N’ Ride” facility along the line for those who also travel to Adelaide beyond Mt. Barker, such as Murray Bridge, would use and need the service to Adelaide. The service would also connect to the volunteer organisation SteamRanger which would increase the volume of people and tourists on the SteamRanger Railway, which would greatly benefit tourism between Mt. Barker and Victor Harbor. Not only this, but the return of Passenger Rail to the Adelaide Hills as well as the Mid North and Barossa regions, would also be of great benefit to the unemployed, job growth and sustainability of the regions, and would also greatly benefit the elderly who can’t drive due to age and health constraints, and also those who are disabled and can not get a wheelchair on a bus. Unfortunately, these individuals are often over looked.

This campaign, along with many others, including the most recent one, also included:

- 2 Petitions to the SA Government, totalling 6000+ signatures;
- Numerous letters to both Patrick Conlon and Jane Lomax-Smith (usually the responses were arrogant and rude);
- Survey conducted by a separate group with over 400 responses saying that they would use the service on a daily basis to travel to and from work;
- Many, many articles in the Barossa Herald by Michelle Oreaily supporting and asking the SA Government to reinstate a service from 2003 until 2005-2006;
- There was a special meeting in Parliament House (around 2006 I believe) in which a few select individuals, were asked to attend to give evidence as to why a service to the Barossa and Mid North should be reinstated;
- The Tourism Centres in Tanunda and Gawler also pleaded to the SA Government that this was a project waiting to happen, they received calls, and still do to this very day, on an ongoing bases from people from both interstate and overseas enquiring about and wanting to book Rail to the famous wine region (an article was published around 2003-2004 in the Barossa Herald in regards to this).

Further investigations revealed that regarding the Regional Railway services in South Australia, it was also discovered that the sale of the (Regional) Passenger Rail was based on misconception and untruths brought about by the Australian National railways at the time.

Documentation, released in 2007 by Chris Hall (Blue Bird Rail), states that:

“The AN (Australian National) Board was not happy about the positive performance of the passenger business. The Board’s aim was to get rid of the business at any cost and for political reasons it was considered that the electorate would oppose the sale of a profitable Government owned business. The aim therefore was to make the passenger business appear unfavourable and to be Making a substantial loss. When an advertising campaign was launched over a Christmas period, Chris was called in to explain why the Business was being advertised. The Board made it clear that there was not to be did any advertising of the AN Passenger trains.”

With further investigation compiled from another report it had been uncovered that: AN were running full passenger trains to Whyalla and Broken Hill, and when asked why the services were being cut, their response was “There simply isn’t enough demand for these services; we need 160 passengers a trip to break even” in a radio interview. The reporter then asked “If the trains are full, how many carriages are you operating?” Their answer was “2, each seat 60 passengers”. People were being turned away as the trains were full, but AN refused to add extra cars to make the trains pay their way, as a way of getting out of the passenger business.

Personally I, along with many others that I have shown this report to since then, believe that the tactics used by Australian National, in their manipulation to force the sale of the states Regional lines, that this is an absolute disgrace, and a complete and total abuse of public trust and more than justifies reasons beyond doubt, that services such as these should be put back into place to service the communities of this state. After all, it is the SOUTH AUSTRALIAN Government, not the Adelaide Government. In addition, a reply from then Transport Minister Patrick Conlon stated that “The Regional Passenger lines were sold due to poor patronage.” However, this was not, and still clearly is not the case in the report by Chris Hall as mentioned above. Chris Hall was working with Australian National at the time.

All efforts were dismissed, with the following reasons: GWA own the line; the line wasn't suitable for passenger rail; there wouldn't be enough people who use the service if they reinstated Passenger rail to the Barossa. In regards to GWA, who own and manage the Barossa and Mid North lines, the SA Government refused to answer specific questions relating to the obligations of GWA and their responsibility to maintain the infrastructure to support a passenger service, the Government also refused to answer questions as to why GWA weren’t being held accountable to the obligations as stated in the lease agreement, stated below:

- The Minister for Transport owns the land comprising the Angaston station yard;
- The land is leased to Genesee & Wyoming Australia Pty Ltd (GWA) for a term of 50 years commencing 7/11/97;
- The improvements on the land, including the station building, are owned by GWA. DTEI understands that GWA sub-leases the station building;
- The lease to GWA provides that GWA must "to the extent necessary to avoid nuisance to neighbouring properties, to safeguard public safety and to maintain the Lessee's ability to conduct Railway Operations"… “keep the Lessee's Property clean and in good repair and condition"… “keep any buildings on the Land clean and in good condition"...;
- In 2007 GWA sought the approval of the Lessor to sub-lease portion of the station yard for carparking for hotel patrons. Consent was given for a term of 5 years with 2 further options to renew for 5 years and providing that the sub-lease will be terminated if the land is surrendered by GWA from the ground lease;
- In 2007 GWA sought the approval of the Lessor to sublease the resthouse and adjacent land to Eblen Subaru. Consent was given for a term of 5 years with two further options of renewal for 5 years and providing that the sub-lease will be terminated if the land is surrendered by GWA from the ground lease. Approval was also given for Eblen Subaru to erect a shed on the land;
- Neither of these leases are in the vicinity of the station building. They are both situated west of the station building fronting Ken Street. Some tracks that lead to the turntable where the shed for Eblen Subaru is to be erected will be removed. Consent was given for this on 19 April 2007;
- Both developments are currently before Council for development approval;
- GWA has advised that the survey pegs may be for the purpose of accurately defining the land for one of these sub-leases but assures the department that there is no intention of tracks being removed other than those consented to above;
- DTEI will advise GWA of the concerns regarding the vandalism and request they arrange for some clean up work to remove the graffiti;
It is also worth noting that prior to GWA’s arrival on the scene in 1997, that the Nuriootpa railway station was refurbished by the local community. Ivan Venning was also involved with that project. This clearly means that GWA didn’t keep with their lease agreement and allowed the building to fall into a state of disrepair and subsequently demolished a local heritage listed building, despite efforts by the local community to have it restored and repaired once more.

GWA also have long-term lease agreements with DPTI for most of the railway infrastructure in SA, in particular Roseworthy to Kapunda, Hamley Bridge to Balaklava, Gawler to Burra, the whole of Eyre Peninsula Narrow Gauge network (both Whyalla and Port Lincoln divisions), Gawler to Penrice via Nuriootpa, Islington Railway Workshops (currently the 38 ha subject of a Development Plan Amendment), and grain trains to the South East to Loxton and Pinnaroo.

The lease agreements between DPTI and lessees such as GWA stipulate that the track infrastructure must be maintained. While I do not personally have a copy of the lease (only specific details mentioned above), I was provided with information from a forum member back in 2009, given to them by Patrick Conlon:

“The lease of the land to GWA requires that all improvements on the land in the Non-Metropolitan Railways (Transfer) Act 1997, defined as including “buildings and other structures including platforms, railway stations, passenger terminals, freight sheds, freight terminals, roundhouses, workshops and associated buildings are kept in good repair and condition but only to the extent necessary to avoid nuisance to the neighbouring properties, to safeguard public safety and to maintain the Lessee's ability to conduct Railway Operations. The terms of the lease to GWA were negotiated in 1997 and this Government is bound by those terms. If GWA is complying with the terms of its lease I do not have the ability to insist on the preservation or restoration of this building (Nuriootpa Railway Station).”

Jamie Botten, lawyer acting for GWA, has also been recorded in the Environment, Resources and Development Court on 3 August 2010 saying:

“GWA took over operation of Australian National and have a long-term lease with the SA Government to operate and maintain certain infrastructure, including in this case the Nuriootpa Railway Station.”

GWA and the other railway operator lessees have systematically run down all our historic 19th and early 20th Century stations included in their lease, regardless of whether the building has state heritage listing or not, through lack of basic preventative maintenance such as white ant treatment, gutters, downpipes, roofing sheets, ingress of water and pigeons.

For example, Nuriootpa, which had local heritage listing, Tarlee and Saddleworth which have no protective listing (the latter of which was also demolished by GWA), as well as Balhannah, Angaston, Balaklava and Burra, which all have state heritage listing, and others (A list can be obtained from DPTI, from the above. All except Balhannah are on GWA’s lease). In the case of Burra, which was recently granted a once - off $200,000 funding by Minister for Environment and Conservation Hon. Paul Caica for repairs to the roof, the lack of white ant treatment has caused an estimated damage of $500,000 to floorboards, doors, windows and roof timbers in addition to damage caused by water and pigeon ingress. I am told that when the Burra Regional Gallery, the community group who leases the Station building from GWA, approached them asking for financial assistance in the restoration, they were told GWA had no money for that.

As mentioned above, the Burra Railway Station has state heritage listing, as do most of the railway stations that need preservation and restoration. The Heritage Places Act 1993 stipulates:

36 – Damage or neglect

(1) A person who:
(a) Intentionally or recklessly damages a State Heritage Place; or
(b) Engages in conduct knowing that it will or might, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether it will or might, destroy or reduce the heritage significance of a State Heritage Place, is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty: $120,000.

(2) A person who undertakes any action that:
(a) Damages a State Heritage Place; or
(b) Destroys or reduces the heritage significance of a State Heritage Place, is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty: $50,000.

(3) A person who:
(a) Fails to take reasonable care of a State Heritage Place; or
(b) Fails to comply with any prescribed requirement concerning:
(i) The protection of a State Heritage Place; or
(ii) The state of repair of a State Heritage Place,
is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty: $25,000.

Engaging in omission of preventative maintenance is (1b) above as well as failing to take reasonable care (3a).

Neither the DTEI (DPTI), various Local Councils or the Heritage Branch have ever challenged GWA or other leaseholders on their contractual and legislative obligations. Instead, railway stations and goods shed are run down and eaten by white ants and damaged by ingress of water and vandals until they become a threat to public safety, then they get demolished. Dozens of historic railway structures have been demolished over the last 10 years either due to disrepair giving rise to alleged public safety issues or because they were in the way of development (some examples are: the oldest country railway station in SA, the 1860 Roseworthy Railway Station demolished in 2006 to allow for construction of tennis courts; the 1882 Orroroo stone goods shed demolished in 1998 by South Australian Cooperative Bulk Handling as it was in the way of grain trucks; Nuriootpa Goods Shed demolished due to disrepair/white ants) although the Non-Metropolitan Railways (Transfer) Act 1997 stipulates:

(5) The Minister must not give consent on behalf of the State to the removal of Track Infrastructure (buildings and other structures including platforms, railway stations, passenger terminals, freight sheds, freight terminals, roundhouses, workshops and associated buildings) in accordance with the terms of clause 9.1(f) or 9.2(e) of the Railways Agreement unless the Minister is satisfied that the Track Infrastructure is no longer required for the safe, efficient and effective use of the relevant railway line.

(6) The Minister must, as soon as practicable after giving a consent in the circumstances described in subsection (5), prepare a report on the matter and have copies of the report laid before both Houses of Parliament.

Has the Minister given consent to demolish all these structures and been satisfied that they are no longer required for safe, efficient and effective use of the railway line and have the reports been prepared and laid before both Houses of Parliament? If so, are these publicly available?

In addition, GWA retains the leases although the Non-Metropolitan Railways (Transfer) Act 1997 stipulates:

“The Ground Lease will contain such terms and conditions as may be agreed between the parties, including provisions
(b) entitling the State to terminate the lease in respect of all or any part of the Operational Railways Land if:

(iii) The Operational Railways Land or that part ceases to be used for Railway Services* for a continuous period of eighteen months;

(f) That the Track Infrastructure on that land will not be removed without the prior written consent of the State.

*Railway services seem very vaguely and broadly defined in the Act: “means services provided in association with the Operational Railways Land including the handling, storage and carriage of freight by rail (and incidentally by road), the storage, servicing and maintenance of rolling stock, the maintenance and replacement of Track Infrastructure and the maintenance and operation of signalling and communication equipment (but excluding the Passenger Services).”

It could be put forward that there were no railway services on the Nuriootpa to Angaston line for several years. If so, then why did the agreement between GWA and Barossa Council to give Council the lease so they could build a bike track for the community include council having to cut up the rails to specified lengths, transport and store them for up to 7 years free of charge (i.e. at ratepayers' cost) at 7.5 km, according to GWA the rails had a resale value of $600,000 when the lease could have been terminated?

There are well-founded rumours that GWA are going to rip up and sell the rails to Burra - a value of approx. $7.5 million according to GWA's calculation of the resale value of the Barossa track - although they have not run a train over the lines for at least 4 years and therefore the state could be entitled to terminate the lease and reclaim the infrastructure. Should they be entitled to this $7.5 million track which was paid for by our ancestors?

And now that the 38 ha Islington Railway Workshops are in the process of being rezoned from industrial to light industrial, retail and commercial without excluding future residential “in some instances residential development” is “being contemplated” as some of the land is considered surplus to GWA's requirements “GWA will continue to operate from their site within the Area Affected, although they have indicated a significant proportion of the land within the Area Affected is surplus to their requirements” and “While GWA's continuing requirements will need to be accommodated within the scope of any investigations pertaining to the land within this DPA, the remaining land should be considered for higher and better purposes” and “the majority of existing industrial land is no longer required, and since the location of retail and commercial land uses has become appropriate. The introduction of any new industrial land uses within the Area Affected should be limited to industrial uses which will be appropriate alongside other appropriate land uses contemplated” but the other land uses contemplated include residential - one can only conclude that in a few years time the taxpayers will have to pay GWA hundreds of millions of dollars compensation for them to relinquish the remaining 80 or so years of their lease as residential will not be compatible with working rail yard operations!

Also worth noting is the pricing structure used by GWA. It virtually precludes any other company but Viterra from using rail in South Australia easily and cost effectively. There is also an additional rail weighing fee of $2.75 a tonne (2 to 5 cents would be reasonable). (sub. DR64, pg 2)

On their line from Dry Creek to Port Adelaide they (GWA) require an additional pilot; while only a distance of 10km, the charge for the pilot is $2.00 per mt. It has been calculated that for one train carrying 2200 tonnes over 145 km of track, that GWA would charge $59,400, compared with V/Line $6224, ARTC $2482 and NSW Rail $2317.

A recent costing provided to AWB from GWA to run a rake of grain wagons along the Pinnaroo or Loxton lines to deliver grain into the Port Adelaide amounted to $66,000 per train. In comparison in NSW or Victoria, an equivalent grain train movement costs AWB less than $6,000 per train.

When one looks at what privatisation, and subsequent monopolisation, has done to Regional Rail Services in SA, it is little to no wonder as to why Farmers are transporting their crops via Road instead of Rail. This would also be an obvious reason why many of the lines have been closed, such as the Burra line, which also means there is no much needed passenger services. It also means that on roads such as the Barrier Highway for example, because there is not availability of rail in the region that the roads are always under constant repair and in poor condition, meaning more money is being spent on roads due to all the freight being transported by truck instead of rail.

In regards to the Adelaide Metropolitan network, it is hard to understand and justify what used to be once regarded as one of the best rail systems in the nation is now regarded and scored as one of the worst. A friend has told me “From a personal perspective I can honestly say that I have had no desire, except on occasions when I was forced to, I have not used public transport in this state since the removal of the now defunct Northfield rail corridor. My reasons for this are since the removal of this line in 1984, I have only caught public transport on 2 occasions, one of the things that annoy me the most is that the removal of this service meant that there was no longer the option to travel a more direct route by public transport to the city, and that the possibility of extending the service beyond Northfield to service the growing areas of Walkley Heights, Ingle Farm, Modbury and Valley View had also been taken away.” I could not agree more. The Government had the opportunity to cash in on these areas by extending the Northfield line, but threw it away.

The short sightless by the SA Government means that, instead of catching the direct rail service (approx. 25 – 30 minute trip into the city), we the public in the North-Eastern suburbs are forced to catch busses that often ran late or before the schedule, (which meant that the bus driver usually sat on 20 – 30km/hr all the way to the city on average), in most cases, the bus would go through the various back streets and suburbs on route to the city making the trip around 40 – 45 minutes or longer. Also where as the rail service only stopped at the stations to pick up and drop off passengers, a bus will need to stop at it designated stops, also has to negotiate road works, traffic lights and other problems associate with road traffic problems including breakdowns to the city.

This rail service should have never been removed, and the Northfield train still had to run to Dry Creek so that the Gawler service could run express to the city from the Dry Creek station.

I have also been advised by a Member of Parliament that the electrification of the Perth rail system was FEDERALLY FUNDED. If this is the case, then why is it then that the South Australian electrification is being funded by the state budget? We the people of South Australia see this as playing favouritism.

Further questions were put forward to various individuals within the SA Government and DPTI regarding the railway lines, and were never answered. These included:

- Was there a detailed and proper investigation/survey conducted by the Rann Government into the passenger rail to the Barossa? And if so was this survey/investigation paid for by public taxes? And in what year (s) were the surveys conducted?
- If such a survey was properly conducted and paid for by us the public of South Australia, why has there been no publication of the results including the costings of the passenger rail to the Barossa? How was the survey conducted and how many people were surveyed?
- Why has GWA not followed though on the lease agreement when it states they must “keep the Lessee's Property clean and in good repair and condition...keep any buildings on the Land clean and in good condition...”, and why has the Nuriootpa, Angaston, Burra buildings and other railway infrastructure been allowed to fall into such a state of disrepair in some cases to the point where they now have to be demolished or can’t be operated on?
- When will GWA be made accountable to uphold the lease agreement and repair or replace if need be stations and the rail lines to Angaston, including the station itself, Nuriootpa station, Burra including the line and buildings that GWA hold a lease agreement for these railway corridors and properties as well?
- Why does the State Govt allocate tax payers money to a private bus company (Barossa Valley Coaches) bus services, by making a “substantial contribution to the local public transport by funding all concessions to the private bus operator”, but refuses to help the Barossa Wine train, which in itself is a privately owned business?
- Why does the transport minister the Hon. Patrick Conlon refuse to release any reports into a Barossa railway? Including the reports on the survey that the Govt have claimed to investigated? And why does this state Govt allow tax payers dollars to go towards making a substantial contribution to the local public transport by funding all concessions to the private bus operator, yet refuse to put in place a regular public rail service to regions such as the Barossa, Burra, Mt. Barker and Murray Bridge?
- Why does the SA Government also refuse to answer any questions to the manipulated forced sale of our regional rail services such as Whyalla and Broken hill when it was clearly stated by Chris Hall in a document in 2007 that in a newsletter by Chris Hall from Bluebird rail that states that: “The AN Board was not happy about the positive Performance of the passenger business. The Board’s aim was to get rid of the business at any cost and for political reasons it was considered that the electorate would oppose the sale of a profitable government Owned business. The aim therefore was to make the passenger business appear unfavorable and to be Making a substantial loss. When an advertising campaign was launched over a Christmas period, Chris was called in to explain why the Business was being advertised. The Board made it clear that there was not to be any advertising of the AN Passenger trains.”
- Why was the public of South Australia not given the true facts regarding these issues, and are we also now to assume the reason why the transport minister the Hon. Patrick Conlon refuses to release any reports into a Barossa railway.” Is because once again, the Government maybe covering up the true facts to returning a public passenger railway to the Barossa Valley? Including to the reason why the state and local heritage listed buildings and Infrastructures such as the railway lines to our regional areas of the state, that are leased by GWA, why GWA have not been made accountable to the deterioration of many of these infrastructures as stated in the lease agreement?
- When will GWA or DPTI be held accountable (whoever is responsible) for the demolishing of the Nuriootpa and Saddleworth stations after motions were made to have them restored by local volunteers? Why were they destroyed so suddenly in the knowledge that such local groups wanted to restore them?

Furthermore, these following issues also need to be addressed, and urgently:

- The deliberate deception by the SA Government to the public to force the sale of the states regional railways;
- The South Australian rail electrification project should be federally funded (as has been done in Perth) and not funded out of the State Budget;
- The need for a rail to the Barossa, Mid North, Mt. Barker & Murray Bridge including our other regional lines, which should also include the benefits of the of a park and ride facilities along the lines for those who also travel to and from Adelaide;
- The benefits to the unemployed, Job growth and sustainability the railway would have to the regions, including the benefits to the elderly who can not drive due to age and health constraints, and the benefits to the school and university students and the disabled;
- The reinstating of the Northfield railway to service the North eastern Suburbs and surrounding districts;

It is to be noted that I reference the Government as the SA – SOUTH AUSTRALIAN – Government, because they are just that, the South Australian Government, not the Adelaide Government. The SA Government (note SA) also needs to realise that South Australia includes the areas past Gepps Cross and the Heysen Tunnels. As voters, we employ them and pay them. Unfortunately the opportunity to sack them only arises once every 4 years.

As such, I am personally going to be creating, as of now, a public campaign aimed at creating support and awareness, for regional public transport (focusing on rail) in South Australia. I have a Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/RegionalRailInSA) as well as a public forum (http://railwaysaustralia.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=41). This has gone on long enough and it’s time that the voices of South Australians were heard and not ignored.

I hope to hear from you very soon in regards to this matter.

With all due Respect,

Kind Regards,

[dsriggs]

[[Shuz]]

Did anyone read all of that?

[claybro]

As transport is a passion of mine, I did read all of this, unfortunately most of the interesting points are lost in this yawnfest. I think to get the message across will require a much more concise communication of the MAIN points and issues. ie 1. we should have been better compensated by the Federal Gov for giving up control of our rail, with service guarrantees left in place and policed,and 2. Lines closed ie Northfield ,Barossa, Reynella, should not have been removed prior to these areas experiencing a population explosion. Planning of these areas should have been built around use of rail. The new preferred option of running down rail is to try to get grain off rail and onto roads, but this might finally be the straw that breaks the camels back as many of our regional roads cannot efficiently carry more freight,(they are quite literally falling appart) so either way the government will need to fund something, and given recent history, my money is unfortunately on roads and not rail.

[Hooligan]

Did anyone read all of that?

[fabricator]

Looks like a compilation of Heardy_101's greatests rants.

Seriously you sent that huge list of historical facts mixed with the odd question that should probably be answered to the media and politicians ?

[Heardy_101]

Certainly did, unless of course you can give me a reason as to why I shouldn't have, which so far no-one has.

Seriously wake up - everyone whinges and whines about how they'd do this and how they'd do that if they were in charge, and as soon as someone steps up and says "Well I'm going to get up off this armchair off my whingy whingy lazy little backside and do something about it", people turn on you.

Rant? Please.

Stop taking it for granted that in metro areas, things like Public Transport are handed to you on a plate, just because I choose to live in a not-so-metro area ala a rural town, doesn't mean I shouldn't get a piece of the pie as well.

[Heardy_101]

.....we should have been better compensated by the Federal Gov for giving up control of our rail, with service guarrantees left in place and policed......

Funny how that, as one of 2 states that sold their Railways (Tassie being the other), we were left with 2/10ths of nothing in terms of passenger as well as a relatively large Freight network that also vanished. Those that didn't (eg Victoria).....I let you work it out.

....Lines closed ie Northfield ,Barossa, Reynella, should not have been removed prior to these areas experiencing a population explosion......

Exactly!!

The Willunga line is a classic example. People say it was never viable. While that is true, however had the line simply remained dormant until areas such as Reynella, Woodcroft, Morphett Vale, Huntfield Heights (which are built around that corridor), then the Government could have easily have rebuilt the line, instead of closing and destroying it.

Northfield is also another example, with areas such as Valley View, Modbury etc all having housing booms around the time the line closed. There is also the argument that the O-Bahn killed the line as well, which is true, however the Government could still have cashed in on those areas as well.

[skyliner]

Heardy - Most appreciated. I did read it but was again annoyed by the almost total avoidance of the SE.(it seems like it is cut off as another 'state'). what is the story for the SE and Mt Gambier (SE around 62000 people - 26000 in MG? The freight was huge yet even this is cut off. I gather $10 000 000 is set aside for the SE re development but no mention of this????

[Heardy_101]

Good afternoon Jack-

My sincere apologies for forgetting the South East.

You are right it is the forgotten part of this state.

I have done a separate letter in regards to the SE but have not sent it yet. Thanks for reminding me!

[Nort]

Certainly did, unless of course you can give me a reason as to why I shouldn't have, which so far no-one has.

Seriously wake up - everyone whinges and whines about how they'd do this and how they'd do that if they were in charge, and as soon as someone steps up and says "Well I'm going to get up off this armchair off my whingy whingy lazy little backside and do something about it", people turn on you.

Rant? Please.

Stop taking it for granted that in metro areas, things like Public Transport are handed to you on a plate, just because I choose to live in a not-so-metro area ala a rural town, doesn't mean I shouldn't get a piece of the pie as well.

By its nature, public transport is always going to be centered in metropolitan areas. I certainly think that the rail lines should extend further into the Barossa and even down to Victor Harbour, but there does reach a point in rural areas where regular public transport isn't financially viable.

[Heardy_101]

By its nature, public transport is always going to be centered in metropolitan areas. I certainly think that the rail lines should extend further into the Barossa and even down to Victor Harbour, but there does reach a point in rural areas where regular public transport isn't financially viable.

I don't disagree with you.

I do not ask for the impossible. For example, I would never suggest a daily peak hourly service to Mount Gambier because it wouldn't work; rather an Overland type service, eg thrice weekly, plus a return of frieght to the SE (Another argument for another day, I have plenty of other posts for that but will save them for later).

It could be suggested that a shuttle service could work re: the Barossa or Kapunda.

If you are familiar with the Frankston - Stony Point line in Melbourne, Diesels terminate at Frankston, with passengers heading to the city continue their journey via the Electrics. A service could and would work, between Gawler and Kapunda, or Gawler and Nuriootpa.

[claybro]

In reguard to the SE line, why does our thinking stop at the border? I think an Adelaide Mt Gambier train should terminate at Portland. With a direct rail route some residents of SW Vic would take the train to Mt Gambier or even Adelaide rather than drive to Warrnambool for the train to Melbourne. If the Adelaide Portland line became busy enough, they could even join the section from Portland to Warranmbool, so a coastal daily train service Adelaide to Melbourne would be possible. Would be a slow trip all the way but it would connect all the larger population centres along the coast. ie Naracorte 5000 Mt Gambier 26000, Portland 12000, Warnambool 33000, Colac 10000, Geelong 160000.'If this seems fanciful then think there are many trips daily between these centres by bus, the bus lines being heavily subsidised by government not to mention the damage to the roads which is also not taken into account with bus fares, and freight could go by rail to remove some of the trucks from the roads.