Id say transhipment went the way of the subterminal system in NSW - the cost of double handling wasn't worth it so it didn't happen.So is this an example of build it and they won't come? Government spending $$$ on infrastructure upgrades demanded by the private sector which they then don't use?
Maybe this is why the government doesn't rush out and upgrade rail lines on a whim. I have read the MB business case (as I think you have @James.au) and it will be interesting to see how that goes in terms of actual traffic vs projected traffic.
Back then it wasn't the private sector. The sub terminals concept was a creation of the NSWGEB and the railways at the time. Government agencies.... Dunolly was under the control of the Victorian GEB so same difference.
Id say they've learned now, and with the number of stakeholders identifiable on 2 hands, they could have conversations and make sure they were acommodated for.
The only thing that I have problem with in this approach is that they don't talk to potential new entrants and possibly entrench the incumbents through their actions.
Re the MB business case, id say its ok, but its holey. The mineral sands business has probably been pushed down the road from where it is now.
But if Wakefields are up to 5 services, chances are the desired daily services could be seen soon which will be an improvement. I would love to see the fleet utilisation figures.
Does anyone know what happened to the BG container wagon rake that used to do the Wakefield service?