Light rail dismissal is way off track

Claims Hobart’s existing tracks are not fit for light rail maybe partially true but there is no need to take the rail proposal entirely off the table, writes Stephen Zvillis

The Light Rail option for the Hobart Transport corridor is now considered “off the table” as announced by the state government, following the release of the GHD Condition Assessment Report in February. It seems light rail is completely eliminated from any further consideration. That may well be the case for the current government, but is it actually the case that rail is not viable?

To determine the true situation, we need to consider the terms of reference given to GHD to account for many of the recommendations that shaped the outcome of the report.

It appears the key, overriding specification, which informed the entire study, as well as the decision taken in response, was the completely unfounded decision to insist that the study base all its calculations on “standard” gauge (which is 1435mm between the tracks).

Tasmania, like Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Japan, built its railway and street tramways to “Cape gauge” (1067mm). All related infrastructure such as bridges, underpasses, embankments and more, were scaled around that specification.

From 1911 to 1981 between Hobart and Claremont there were two tracks. When the Hobart intercity bike track was constructed over the empty formation of the long removed, surplus second line, the opportunity to reinstate a continuous double track railway to Claremont was eliminated. Beyond Claremont, it was always one track which sufficed even when suburban passenger services worked as far as Brighton.

The existence of Hobart intercity bike track might seem to challenge the restoration of a workable rail commuter system, however, retaining the current track gauge allows enough locations to be equipped with sufficient automated passing sidings to permit a good frequency of services for any proposed rail commuter operation.

When the Hobart Northern Suburbs Rail Action Group commenced its campaign in late 2009 to convert the soon to be abandoned freight line to Hobart to a commuter line for residents of the northern suburbs, the concept never suggested any alteration to the track gauge. In fact, that was seen as destructive to both the viability of the concept and importantly, to multi-user access by the tourist and heritage groups and potential future freight access. So where did the demand that the track gauge be widened come from and why?

It can only be speculated as to who was responsible, apparently from some level of the state bureaucracy during the scoping of the first round of business case studies during the last Labor/Green government.

No convincing reason has ever been raised. Cynics claim it was a deliberate tactic to kill the rail proposal, which so far, seems to be succeeding. The only “reasons” stated in the GHD report for standard gauge was a claim of “expense and availability of rolling stock” and “maintenance costs”.

Both explanations are weak and provide no detail. Yes, new Australian Light Rail networks have been built to standard gauge, but they were already using that gauge in Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney, or were a completely new construction (such as in

Gold Coast and Canberra).

However, in Europe there are more than 80 light rail systems that use metre gauge, even narrower than our 1067mm gauge. As European companies are the source of modern light rail vehicles, with a number of multi-national firms all supplying rolling stock worldwide, the idea that they have any difficulty in supplying vehicles for their own narrow gauge networks is ludicrous.

As for the statement that it costs more to maintain narrow gauge rolling stock, no reason or justification is proposed and none can be envisaged.

The claim has been made that advocates of Hobart commuter rail expected to be able to use the existing track.

That is a misrepresentation. We (HNSRAG) always knew the existing freight line, although 90 per cent completely rebuilt in 2013 (before closure in 2014) would need to be upgraded and enhanced with the provision

But there is absolutely no need to change gauge, change rail profiles nor condemn the entire formation just for want of a clean and upgrade.

of loops, automated points, signalling, stations, carparks, and so on, to successfully accommodate the proposed light rail operation.

However, longs sections of track are well and truly fit for purpose and require only a small amount of work.

The government’s claim that the existing track is not fit for light rail, may be partly correct, as it is still a limited capacity freight line. But there is absolutely no need to change gauge, change rail profiles nor condemn the entire formation just for want of a clean and upgrade. That is completely over the top, unwarranted, and would completely destroy any possibility of use by the tourist and rail heritage groups, likely throttling the life from the highly regarded Tasmanian Transport Museum.

Stephen Zvillis is vice president of the Hobart Northern Suburbs Rail Action Group.