All the same, I wish I had been there...gotta love the Aussies!

Sounds like my kind of people...

What would your response be to the arrival of a 19th century white elephant that cost over $500 mill to build?

In the words of one transport company CEO...."it's profits will be as big as a tick's testicle".....

Still, it will win some votes somewhere...

Re: the North-South Railway:
Currently, a lot of agricultural produce is put on trains, then shipped to the nearest port city, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane. there it's unloaded and put on board ships.
Most of the critics of the railway have concentrated on the single aspect of whether it's cheaper to deliver stuff from the Adelaide Docks via ship to Singapore, or to load it on a train and freight it to Darwin, *then* put it on board a ship.
It's easy to show that the additional charges and problems in multiple handling make any cost or time savings problematic.
But this argument is a "straw man": the usual case is to go from a country freight station via train to the North-South rail line, then to Darwin, at a cost approximately equal to sending it to Port Adelaide docks.
But the most compelling argument for the rail-line is the same as for the Trans-Siberian: Defence, and as a major trunk route to areas that cannot feasibly be reached any other way. When Cyclone Tracey wiped Darwin off the map in the 70's , it took a fleet of 747s, each carrying 500+ passengers rather than the usual 300+, to evacuate the joint. And it had to be evacuated because the only way of getting large generators and earthmoving equipment in was via sea, and that took weeks.
Should another Tracey happen, evacuation will not be needed, instead a minimal infrastructure (water purification, power) could be re-built a week. (Though it would take far longer to go from "minimal-enough to ensure survival" to "barely adequate".

As regards the welcome: What more appropriate welcome to the VIPs than another lot of Boobs and Arseholes?

It's easy to show that the additional charges and problems in multiple handling make any cost or time savings problematic.

Don't they have container shipping in Australia?

I have nothing wrong with the idea in principle. Taking containers off ships in San Diego or some other west coast port and then taking them across the US by train is an economically sensible way to go, and is widely done. The trouble here is that volumes are low. Initially, this line is to be used for one freight train per day in each direction. That really isn't a lot. Plus of course the line terminates in Adelaide, which is a second tier city. Yes, it is possible to then continue the journey by rail to Sydney or Melbourne, but you are definitely going the "long way" and I can't imagine this is economically sensible.

And I like Australians. In fact, I am one. But I think they are best in low to medium concentration. High concentrations are a little too intense for me.

Alan Brain - Ha ha! V good!

In the words of one transport company CEO...."it's profits will be as big as a tick's testicle".....

Well, what would you expect him to say? "The new rail line is going to eat our lunch"?

I think that mooning is a very sophisticated way of showing one's true feelings towards politicians.

The alternative is bullets, which are quite uncouth and messy.

Verity :
Hate to say it, but that's the name on my Drivers Licence. And I'm not an Aardvark. Thogh you could have a look at my mugshot and decide for yourself about that one.