Submission Opposing the Proposed New England Rail Trail (Armidale–Ben Lomond) – Pt II
To: The General Manager
Armidale Regional Council
Dear General Manager,
I write to express my strong opposition to the proposed New England Rail Trail between Armidale and Ben Lomond and to the allocation of approximately $2.6 million in Council resources toward preliminary works associated with this project.
This funding includes approximately $1.1 million approved at Council’s October 2025 meeting and a further $1.5 million proposed in the next financial year’s budget.
I also note that in 2024 Council passed a motion, proposed by former Councillor Paul Packham, stating that “there should not be a net cost to Council from the rail trail.” To my knowledge, this motion has not been rescinded.
If this remains Council’s official position, I question how the above financial allocations were approved. I respectfully request that Council review the consistency and validity of these funding commitments in light of the earlier resolution.
In a recent article published by the New England Times, the editor analysed the assumptions, basis and logic underpinning the rail trail proposal advanced by Council since the 2018 AEC feasibility study. The article notes that:
“This 2018 document, clearly stated in the introduction as being commissioned to support the New England Rail Trail development, is not a feasibility study. The document describes itself as a ‘discussion paper’ and a ‘letter’, and clearly states that the information is ‘preliminary and prima facie’ and significantly greater analysis would be required to determine feasibility.”
The article also quoted Mr Matthew Tierney, President of Trains North Inc., who stated that the rail corridor "should now be reassessed in light of the Federal Government’s decision to halt Inland Rail north of Parkes". Mr Tierney argued:
“The old Main North Line must be looked at again, from Werris Creek to Queensland via Tamworth, Armidale and Glen Innes. The Federal Government wants to invest in existing rail freight infrastructure rather than face the huge challenges of greenfield construction. The Main North Line is an existing rail corridor and it’s much easier to create a high-quality railway line where the track formation is still in place, as it is on the Northern Tablelands.”
New England Times article on transport planning assumptions is available here.
In my view, the proposed rail trail is not an essential project and does not enjoy broad community support across the Local Government Area. At a time when many residents are concerned about core council responsibilities and deteriorating local services, Council should prioritise more urgent and essential community needs.
These priorities include:
securing a reliable long-term water supply and improving water infrastructure
addressing air quality and environmental health concerns
maintenance and upgrading of local roads
development of a hydrotherapy pool and other health-related community facilities
improved weed control across rural and urban areas
maintenance and upgrading of existing cycling and walking paths
revitalisation of the Armidale Mall and CBD
attracting businesses, investment and employment opportunities to the region
Council should carefully consider whether spending millions of dollars on preliminary rail trail works genuinely reflects the priorities of the wider community or only those of a limited interest group.
Many residents are also questioning why Council is not advocating more strongly for improved regional public transport services through both State and Federal Governments. This concern has become more significant following release of the Draft New England North West Strategic Regional Integrated Transport Plan by the NSW Government.
The draft plan proposes short- and medium-term initiatives focused largely on buses and cycling infrastructure while explicitly stating that neither the Australian nor NSW Governments currently plan to reactivate the Northern Railway Line to the Queensland border.
Did Council make a submission to this important regional planning process? If so, what transport priorities and long-term infrastructure needs did Council identify for the Armidale Regional Council area over the next 20 years? If not, why not?
It appears inconsistent that Council is willing to devote substantial resources to advancing a rail trail proposal while showing comparatively little public advocacy for expanded regional transport services, including rail.
I also wish to remind Council that 10,700 people signed a petition to the NSW Parliament seeking restoration of passenger rail services from Armidale to Jennings/Wallangarra. The responsible Minister advised that a business case would be required; however, community rail proponents do not possess the financial resources necessary to undertake such studies, which may cost between $200,000 and $500,000.
During a recent meeting with the Mayor and Council representatives, requests for Council assistance with such work were declined on the basis that rail is a State Government responsibility. Yet a different logic appears to apply to the rail trail proposal, where Council has allocated significant public funds despite both projects being community initiatives intended to benefit the region.
Unlike rail trails located near densely populated coastal regions or major tourist destinations, the proposed Armidale–Ben Lomond rail trail is unlikely to attract substantial visitor numbers. Residents have pointed out that Ben Lomond currently lacks basic visitor facilities such as cafés, toilets and supporting infrastructure.
Does Council intend to provide these facilities at additional cost to ratepayers?
I also note again that my own petition opposing the rail trail proposal has attracted more than 5,000 signatures. This demonstrates significant community concern regarding the project and indicates that the proposal does not enjoy universal support. I am formally submitting the link to the petition duing this community consultation period and Council should take this level of opposition seriously before proceeding further.
https://www.change.org/SaveNorthernRailLine
Importantly, Council should now focus on bringing the divided community together rather than deepening divisions over the future of the rail corridor. Continuing to promote an on-formation rail trail proposal — particularly after previous plans failed and grant funding was withdrawn in 2024 — risks further polarising the community during a period of significant cost-of-living pressures.
A more constructive approach would involve genuine consultation with all stakeholders interested in the corridor and attempts to develop compromise solutions capable of balancing recreational, transport, economic and community interests.
In my view, and in the view of many residents supporting restoration of rail services north of Armidale, Council should seriously investigate opportunities to construct an off-formation rail trail without removing existing rail infrastructure.
Many residents regard the railway line as a strategic public asset that should remain available for future passenger, freight and tourism rail services rather than being permanently compromised for a recreational project. The region already contains numerous walking and cycling tracks. Before any irreversible decisions are made regarding removal of rail infrastructure, an independently assessed off-formation alternative should be properly investigated.
This proposal received support at a public meeting of ratepayers held in March 2026, where resolutions were passed calling on Council to investigate off-formation alternatives and seek compromise solutions (see attachment).
Following that meeting, a community delegation met with the Mayor, several councillors and the General Manager to discuss these resolutions and requested that Council convene a stakeholder roundtable involving all interested parties concerned with the future use of the corridor.
Unfortunately, this request was not accepted. Instead, we were encouraged to support Council’s preferred on-formation rail trail proposal.
I believe this approach fails to adequately consider alternative options capable of preserving future rail opportunities while still allowing recreational trail development. It is also noteworthy that Tenterfield Shire Council does not appear to share the same position as Armidale Regional Council or Glen Innes Severn Council.
Another major concern is that Council has not given equal consideration to alternative proposals for future use of the corridor despite presentations made by businesses, community organisations and rail groups.
For example, New England Regional Railways Company has publicly released updates regarding plans to restore rail services between Armidale and Llangothlin, including engineering inspections and preliminary cost estimates prepared by transport professionals during 2024.
https://www.nrrc.com.au/post/stage-1-armidale-to-wallangarra-railway-reopening-costs-released
Similarly, proposals associated with New England Innovation and Development Company and Mr David Peters of Guyra have outlined potential freight opportunities linking Guyra, Tamworth and the Port of Newcastle.
These initiatives suggest there are credible alternative visions for the corridor capable of supporting regional industry, freight, employment and long-term economic development.
Given these developments, I struggle to understand why Council continues to pursue preliminary works and consultation for a rail trail using the same corridor.
To many residents opposing the rail trail, it appears that different groups within the region — including sections of Council — are now working at cross purposes.
I recognise that some elected representatives, including the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, strongly support the rail trail proposal and are closely associated with rail trail advocacy organisations such as NERT. However, civic leaders must rise above sectional interests when dealing with a significant public asset such as the Northern Railway Line and consider the broader long-term interests of the region.
If Council’s broader objective is to attract population growth, investment, business and industry, then an operational rail corridor has far greater long-term strategic value than a recreational trail alone.
I also remain concerned about Council’s proposed expenditure of approximately $2.6 million on preliminary planning, approvals and project development associated with the rail trail proposal, including the involvement of NSW Public Works.
Council should publicly disclose:
the amount of public money being spent on NSW Public Works involvement
the nature of the agreement between Council and NSW Public Works
whether NSW Public Works is expected to become project manager if the proposal proceeds
the total anticipated cost exposure to ratepayers
Transparency is especially important given the level of community concern and the fact that Council is currently the principal financial contributor to the project.
I also have concerns regarding the rail trail business case and projected economic benefits. I do not have confidence in the visitor projections contained within the report.
In particular, I question how the business case estimates approximately 11,400 overnight visitors while projecting only around 9,000 day visitors. The projected annual economic returns also appear significantly higher than those associated with comparable rail trail projects such as the Tweed Rail Trail.
It should also be noted that the business case was prepared in 2024 and may no longer accurately reflect current economic conditions, tourism trends, infrastructure costs or changing regional transport priorities.
Overall, I remain uncertain whether Council’s strategic focus is on long-term business and industry development or on a tourism-based project carrying substantial financial and practical risks, including biosecurity concerns raised by adjacent landholders.
I understand that Council has so far been unable to secure external grant funding for the project. Under the NSW Rail Trails Framework, proponents are expected to demonstrate capacity to fund the full project cost. In this case, the projected cost reportedly exceeds $21 million.
If Council is unable to secure such funding, the application may not proceed and the millions already spent on preliminary work will effectively have been wasted.
Furthermore, during a recent visit to Council offices, I observed a display outlining a proposed governance arrangement involving NERT. I question whether this material formed part of the official community consultation process.
If it did, was this information formally included within the public consultation documents? If not, why not?
I do not believe it is appropriate for Council to involve a rail trail advocacy organisation in governance arrangements for a publicly funded project before formal approvals have been granted and before broader community consensus has been achieved.
Any future governance arrangements should only be considered after the NSW Government formally determines the future of the rail corridor and after transparent Council consideration and approval processes have occurred.
I also note that Council’s future planning strategies include expansion of housing areas in Armidale, Guyra, Ben Lomond and Black Mountain. While Council appears interested in connecting these communities through cycling infrastructure, I question whether this alone is sufficient.
Should Council not also be advocating for improved regional public transport services, including expanded bus and future rail options, to better connect these communities?
Finally, I wish to emphasise that I am not opposed to cycling and walking trails within the Local Government Area. However, such infrastructure should be developed in appropriate locations and in ways that do not unnecessarily destroy existing rail infrastructure or foreclose future freight and transport opportunities.
Council should first ensure that existing cycling and walking paths are properly maintained before embarking upon another major trail project in the face of substantial community opposition. I regularly use two existing cycling and walking paths in the region and both require maintenance and repairs.
The future of this corridor should not be determined through a one-sided process. Council should adopt a balanced, transparent and evidence-based approach that fairly considers all potential uses of the corridor, including freight rail, tourism rail, passenger rail and recreational trail opportunities, before committing further ratepayer funds to irreversible decisions.
I respectfully urge Council to:
pause further expenditure on the proposed rail trail project
undertake broader and more transparent community consultation with those along the corridor
convene a stakeholder roundtable involving all interested parties
properly assess off-formation trail alternatives
properly assess alternative rail and freight proposals
engage independently with business, transport and regional development stakeholders
focus Council resources on essential services and infrastructure priorities that directly benefit the wider community
Thank you for considering this submission.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Siri Gamage
Appendix
Resolutions
Meeting of Ratepayers and Residents in the Armidale Regional Council Local Government Area – 5 March 2026
295 Rusden Street, Armidale
The meeting resolved as follows:
Council Decision Noted
That the meeting notes the decision of Armidale Regional Council at its October 2025 meeting to proceed with preliminary works and approvals for the proposed rail trail, allocating more than $1 million for this purpose, including approximately $500,000 from Council’s own budget, and engaging NSW Public Works to undertake the work.
Objection to Use of Ratepayer Funds
That the meeting strongly objects to the use of ratepayer funds for the planning, construction, or maintenance of a rail trail involving removal of rail infrastructure.
Community Division
That the meeting notes the significant division within the community arising from Council’s continued pursuit of a rail trail proposal despite the withdrawal of previous funding and despite current opportunities for rail reactivation linked to regional agribusiness development at Guyra.
Call for Roundtable Meeting
That the Mayor and Council be requested to convene a roundtable meeting involving all stakeholders with an interest in the rail corridor between Armidale and Ben Lomond, including representatives of business, industry, freight, heritage rail, passenger rail advocates and rail trail proponents.
Recognition of Long-Term Rail Value
That Council recognise the long-term strategic value of the railway line for regional growth, economic development and cross-border connectivity.
Further, that Council make a submission to the New England North West Strategic Regional Integrated Transport Plan requesting the NSW Government extend passenger rail services to Guyra and Glen Innes as a first stage.
Feasibility Study and Freight Upgrade
That the NSW Government be requested to undertake a feasibility study into restoring rail services north of Armidale to the Queensland border and upgrading the section between Tamworth and Armidale to support freight transport.