In response to an article by Tanya Langdon
ARC report to the council meeting today (22 Oct 2025) under item 9.2 states that the rail trail from Armidale to Ben Lomond will attract 9,000 day visitors and 11,400 overnight stayers annually. Income to be generated is based on these estimates. My question is, if the annual day visitors are 9,000, where do the extra 2,400 overnight stayers come from? Will they be locals who are fed up living in their own or rented homes, who may feel excited about the rail trail for a ride and decide to sleep over? Or has the consultant got the numbers wrong? Should it logically be 11,400 day visitors and 9,000 overnight stayers? This seems to be a numbers game to convince government authorities who will ultimately decide on the viability and community benefits of a rail trail that seeks to remove the rail line and sell the steel to make a buck.
More importantly, the Halliburton report (2018), from which these numbers are taken, assumed that visitors who come to ride this rail trail will not go the full length from Armidale to Glen Innes (103 km) but will ride the trail in sections while staying overnight. However, the proposed rail trail by ARC is shorter than the full length. The rest belongs to the Glen Innes Severn Council area. The ARC section is about 60 km. Do you think a cyclist who comes to Armidale or Ben Lomond to ride this rail trail will ride, for example, 2 km and then stay overnight, wake up the next morning to ride another 20 km and stay again, followed by another ride and sleepover? Or will those cyclists ride for 20 km and return to Armidale to take the train back to Tamworth, Newcastle, Werris Creek, or Sydney? Can you see how airy-fairy these numbers are?
I hope the readers of the New England Times will put their thinking hat on to anything the council says about this rail trail plan, including the way it seeks to raise nearly $600,000 from an external source. If this external source is an energy company in the New England REZ, there is a council policy in relation to handling such funds for community benefit. You can access the policy by visiting the policy section. I hope the council staff follow due process when negotiating with renewable energy companies for any further funds for the rail trail project, because many community members are waiting to know whether other deserving community projects can also access such funds. I note that the Terms of Reference for the Future Fund, promised by the Mayor last year to manage such funds from renewable energy companies in the New England REZ, have not yet been finalised.
Got something on your mind? Go on then, engage. Submit your opinion piece, letter to the editor, or Quick Word now.
Another day, another anti rail trail propaganda piece….
Easily answered, 9000 is the number of people who come for a day trip. 11,300 is the number of folks who come for more than a day. Add those together and thats the total number of visitors. These are things an academic such as yourself, Siri, should be able to grasp easily enough.
Shane McGee 9000 / 365 is ~ 25, doomed to fail.
What would make sense is if Armidale exploited its tourism potential with all the national parks to the east of here then also taking advantage of the Dumaresq Dam facilities by extending the cycleway leading from the tourist information centre and offering cycle hiring along with parking facilities for those wishing to make a day of it by riding out and back.
To be honest there’s enough to stop over for a few nights that tourists would spread the word about in the meantime.
Brian Flint – what is wrong with some tourists, particularly families and others who like the gradual inclines and safety of a rail trail? We also have a mountain bike facility being developed at Tenterfield. The New England could become a cycling hub for all types of cyclists.
Brian Flint you have just perfectly described the New England Rail Trail, thank you ☺️
Brian Flint Not as a stand alone facility. Rail MUST be included and a commitment for a DUAL PURPOSE , facility, both bicycle and rail , with ALL funding be secured from the very outset !. Or ratepayers, will get stuck with the ongoing recurrent costs forever and a day !. And these costs will be substantial !.
Brian Flint And you are a handful of other rail enthusiasts could continue to while away the years lobbying for trains that will never happen. Or we could just get on and build a rail trail and thousands of visitors will come knowingly what experience they can expect.
Peter Hatfield and like our Mayor has said it will all be put aside when the need for trains arises, so a couple of hundred million dollars later down the gurgular, mate we don’t need your advice as much as you try to make out for it’s not needed.
Armidale will be a 15 minute city. There is no way the government will spend money on a train no one will be allowed to use. Give it up.
Buzz Buzz seems the game is to isolate everyone or further disadvantage the disadvantaged.
Welcome to utopia.
Phill Phill check out their Facebook page before you spend any more time on this ‘person😀
Buzz Buzz Have a look at thecresounding successes in Qld with small heritage railway operations. Southern Downs operating from Warwick, the folks operating from Toowoomba. From Gympie with the Valley Rattler. FNQ as well. Time for you folks to stop talking and get moving. The NE area is a tourism goldmine for sensible, low intensity rail tourism. You just don’t ride the rails, you stay in pubs, eat in restaurants, take helicopter flights over gorges, use Ubers and taxis, visit sheep stations,…….
Oh they all have the same regurgitated business plan for rail trails all with the same figures.
They get them at the bottom of the nut mix boxes.
There is no chance of these best case figures for the bike path ever actually happening
David Buckley- curious as to why you are qualified to make that statement? Are you involved in rail trail planning or administration?
Indeed, all utterly inflated & misleading to the unassuming general public. Keep making noise. It is only going to continue getting louder as more communities are enlightened.
Kat Davis that is correct, the outstanding success of existing rail trails is impossible to ignore. Usage numbers are far higher than anyone anticipated, success is visible, measurable and continues to see development of new amenities along these forgotten corridors.
Jenny Wild really? Because looking at the recorded numbers shows that there is less than half the amount using the trail than when it first started and we all know those figures were skewered….
Jenny Wild The usage figures of the rail trails are overinflated eg. when measured on the Tweed rail trail, they have counters that count everything, even the nightly dogs that roam the track, during the day you often see no one, no one at all, I cross the track 4 times going to town, & run parallel to it. Their figures are very questionable. The ammenities are paid for by the ratepayers.
Caroline Mapstone true, tweeds been going down, the novelty wears off.
Caroline Mapstone really??
It is all but irrelevant though isn’t it, wether you believe the numbers or not. It would be difficult to explain the rail trail success in contrast to the non existent use of rotting rail infrastructure present in so many areas, unless those numbers are correct. And even if it were halved, that number would be far greater than those using trains, for if that wasn’t so the trains would still occupy the line.
I guess the truth is it doesn’t matter who does or doesn’t believe the usage numbers, the demonstrated benefits to the towns along rail trails is more than evident to anyone who cares to take a look.
Jenny Wild what benefits? Murwillumbah had empty shops, very little variety, not a lot of foot traffic and in much need of a revamp as it looks very very tired. Mooball has a few more people in the pub and Crabbes Creek had a few cyclists in the park the other day?
I see very little benefit… it’s all over inflated bull dust from rail trailers who rarely come back for a second go.
Huge amount of wasted money for a select few.
Caroline Mapstone there are those who look for fault and find it no matter what. When we were there Murwillumbah was so busy parking was an issue. The Showgrounds were full of campers and a large group booked in just after us. Moobal cafe was busy and the pub had more than a dozen in for lunch on a weekday. There was a large group of cyclists and the riding without age volunteers at Crabbes Creek. But the real test is when you speak with local business owners and they tell you about the increase in trade because of the rail trail. You see it’s not trains or bikes. It’s bikes or nothing, so every extra person in the area is a win. People can either accept that train travel does not provide the public transport we need in the country and look for something better or continue to sit and wring their hands in despair. Either way trains won’t be back on derelict lines.
As always…so sensible, Brian. But I guess sensible, these days, is not a money spinner 😵💫
People arguing figures should do a bit of research on BVRT and the enormous economic benefits it has had on Somerset area or more locally the NRRT where numbers have far exceeded expectations
Simple to me, they are two separate types of visitor, those just coming and riding, then going either home or somewhere else and overnight stays are people who come to Armidale for a night or so to do some riding. Not rocket science.
The numbers are a mistake, 9,000 a day for day visitors ??: gives 3,285,000 visitors pa, that’s more popular than Byron Bay by a million. All the more reason to have a train (with roll on roll off for bicycles). These day visitors would come further than Quirindi most likely Sydney, the closest city at 482km x2 = 964km = gives a grand total of carbon miles of 3,166,740,000 km. That’s 3 billion km of travel just getting there and back, ~ 80,000 times around the earth, or ~4,000 trips to the moon and back, just to ride a bike. Yes its lunacy. Surely enough reason to have a train, & a bike track beside it. Then everyone’s happy.
If The number of day visitors is 9,000 in total, then that’s 25 each day. Thats probably closer to the truth, 25 same people every day, noisy minority, nothing new, a waste of money.
Not going to happen at that intensity level.
Do a benchmarking exercise with other rural ‘rail trails’.
Instead, focus on the success of the Southern Downs Steam Railway in SE Qld, the Mary Valley Railway in Qld, the Savannah Lander, etc….
The New England is crying out for rail excursion tourism experience.
Talk to Lingreach in Central Western Qld and the life that the Railway brings to that town.
I really hope the idea of sacrificing the Railway right of way to cyclists is buried and a contemporary rail experience is born.
Yep. You pay many hundreds of million dollars to reinstate the rail line and it will be great. Otherwise retreat back to your delusional cave.
Bunjurgen Estate Vineyard Queensland has massive coal exports and subsidises rail services including tourist services. Rail restoration is hugely expensive and none of them has had the sort of positive business case rail trails offer.
No one is interested in funding a tourist or any other railway in New England. Governments will fund rail trails because they have strong positive returns on the relatively small investment. The Northern Rivers Rail Trail has had three hundred thousand visits in two and a half years, and the estimated ROI on completing it is six times. The NERT might not be that high, but it will nevertheless provide a strong return for government, local businesses and the community.
April Worley don’t blame the messenger. New England Times is doing a great job giving citizens the opportunity to voice their concerns on any issue.
If the rail trail was to be a viable option, investors would be lineing up at the door, instead or withdrawing funding
Larry Frazer- ignorance is bliss mate. Suggest you some research.
Armidale council can’t even keep up with maintenance on the current road to amazing waterfalls and national parks. With many tourist turning around half way as their city cars can’t make it out due to the unsealed conditions. How are they going to upkeep /afford the tracks after their built
Andrew Travers Ongoing recurrent funding must be secured / committed, from the government , right from the very outset .
Neither option will happen in the next twenty years
The mayor proposes to spend an enormous amount on a stand alone bicycle track, initially , that will be used by only a very small number of people if it proceeds without the rail component. The mayor has suggested, that the bicycle component be built first, and that the rail component follows later. And that everyone should get behind the project and support it . The latter rail component, represents a huge initial restoration cost for rail. A word of extreme caution. There is some considerable , doubt , at present, that the commitment for the second part ( rail ) of the project, may eventually falter, after the bicycle component is established ,unless the project proceeds as a DUSL PURPOSE one , with BOTH , bicycle and rail commitments from the OUTSET , as it involves a huge commitment to restore rail infrastructure. And, when the bicycle fad dissipates , will be an exorbitant ongoing cost to ratepayers to maintain just as a bicycle facility . I understand $ 20,000 per annum maintenance funding has been pledged , for the bicycle component , which represents a drop in the ocean for its ongoing maintenance costs. It wouldn’t even cover wages , not to mention travel expenses , material and other incidental costs of maintenance . If the rail trail project PROCEEDS , at all, it MUST incorporate rail services as a DUAL PURPOSE project , incorporating commitments for BOTH bicycle and rail , and have ALL recurrent funding , including maintenance , included. Failure to include this commitment from the outset will ultimately result with ratepayers , left holding the cost of the ongoing recurrent funding burden. And these costs will be , very substantial !.
Give it a break New England Times. You either support small business in New England or you’re a mouthpiece for those trying to undermine a tourist development so they can keep their train dreams alive.
If rail trails were not a success why have councils and governments repeatedly extended the initial stages ( eg Northern Rivers Rail Trail, Brisbane Valley, Murray to Mountains RT , Otago NZ RT,all with multiple extensions).
And if you don’t think a rail trail in New England would be as attractive and small businesses as likely to flourish as those areas, you haven’t got much appreciation of your own area and its enterprise.
If this article is symptomatic of the reasoning capabilities of those opposing the rail trail, perhaps some introductory course through UNE in microeconomics, benefit cost analysis and mathematics would help? I mean, how is it at all possible that the same person might stay, heaven forbid… more than 1 night…