When a public rail corridor is proposed to be physically altered, the burden of proof should not fall on the community asking for caution. It should fall squarely on those proposing to remove the rails.
This is not a private asset. It is public infrastructure built over generations, linking towns, regions and state borders. Even if trains are not running today, the corridor may still hold future value for freight, passenger transport, emergency resilience, agriculture, heritage tourism, defence planning and cross-border connectivity.
Once rails, sleepers, sidings, bridges and formation assets are removed or altered, the corridor may still exist on a map, but its practical rail value is greatly weakened. Reinstatement becomes more expensive, more difficult and less politically likely. That is why “we can always put it back later” is not good enough.
Over time, a rail trail does not simply “protect” a corridor — it redevelops and repurposes it. Council rezonings, nearby land development, utility works, private encroachments, altered access points, new fencing, car parks, crossings, drainage works and roads built across or close to the formation can all create future obstacles. If rail were ever reconsidered, governments could face costly land buy-backs, redesign of roads and intersections, relocation of trail infrastructure, renewed safety buffers, bridge upgrades and disputes over established recreational use.
The longer the corridor is treated as a cycling and tourism asset rather than a transport corridor, the harder it becomes to restore its original purpose. Protection means keeping future rail use physically, legally and practically viable — not removing the infrastructure and hoping a future government can somehow put it all back.
Before any rail infrastructure is removed, Council and the State should be required to publicly prove that all reasonable alternatives have been assessed. That includes off-formation trails, hybrid trails, town cycling loops, station precinct walks, heritage rail, scenic drives, local walking circuits, gravel cycling routes, nature trails and tourism packages that connect towns without stripping railway infrastructure.
Tourism and cycling can be created in many ways. A region does not need to sacrifice a strategic rail corridor to attract visitors, support cafés, promote accommodation, celebrate heritage or encourage healthy recreation. Town-based cycling networks, historic station trails, rail heritage experiences, walking paths, lookout routes, farm-gate tourism, cultural trails and linked regional itineraries could all bring people into New England without permanently weakening future transport options.
The question is not whether walking, cycling and tourism are worthwhile. They are. The question is whether those benefits justify removing rail infrastructure before the long-term case has been properly tested. If there are less damaging ways to achieve the same tourism and recreation goals, they should be examined first.
Supporters of rail removal should therefore be required to answer clear questions. What alternatives were assessed? What are the full lifecycle costs? Who pays for bridges, drainage, fencing, weeds, biosecurity, insurance, flood repairs, emergency access, toilets, car parks and future renewals? What future freight, passenger, resilience, agricultural, defence, heritage and cross-border uses have been independently tested? What happens if tourism forecasts are wrong? What happens if future governments need the corridor back for transport?
It is not enough to say the line is unused today. Neglect is not proof of redundancy. Lack of current funding is not proof of no future need. A draft plan is not a demolition certificate. Public infrastructure should not be dismantled on assumption, optimism or impatience.
Until the evidence is released, tested and accepted by the broader New England community, the responsible position is simple:
Protect the corridor first.
Prove the case for removal, second.
Only then decide what to do about rail infrastructure!
Tanya Langdon
Tenterfield Resident
19-may-2026
Tanya Langdon runs a small local business and is a resident of Tenterfield. She has been active in political issues in the New England region for 10+ year