At a minimum, the capital cost of upgrading the ramshackle railway would be close to half a billion dollars, around $2.5 million per kilometre.

And for every dollar spent, a return of just 34 cents would be made.

Read more stories:

Armidale Regional Council service leader Lindsay Woodland said even if the rail was taken to Wallangarra, the cost goes up significantly. 

“When I spoke to the AEC Group they believe that taking it to Wallangarra will not make any material change,” he said.

“This is a desktop study and it’s only directional, but it provides a pretty clear direction that it’s unlikely this would be profitable under any scenario.

“To get the project up and running you would require state government funding, I’m not sure there would be the appetite to fund it which is probably why they closed it down in the first place.”

The study doesn’t include the potential impact of the Inland Rail Project, which could diminish freight levels.

The rail line hasn’t been operational since the mid 1970’s, timber structures lie dilapidated, steel sleepers need to be installed and debris needs to be removed, along with a whole host of other upgrades to meet national safety standards.

The controversial debate over reinstating the rail or building a rail trail has been before Armidale Regional Council a number of times in the past eight months.

On Wednesday, a rescission motion against last month’s decision to take no further action on a rail trail feasibility study will be argued.

Council’s budget already has $40,000 put aside to investigate a rail trail, and councillor Diane Gray has put it to council that an external study will be necessary when applying for state and federal grants.

The report shows ongoing maintenance would cost nearly $5 million every year, and the rail line will save travellers half an hour over taking the bus.

Looking at demand, the AEC Group determined 200 people would use the train for work each day, and 550 for leisure.

“The modelling for the project shows the proposal is not feasible,” the AEC report reads.

“The analysis identifies that the project is not viable at any of the discounted rates, with the costs highly outweighing the benefits.

“This highly negative return can be seen across all three discounted rates.”

Initially the passenger train could generate revenue of $7.9 million, which doesn’t seem so bad until operating costs of 80 per cent are forked out, leaving the state government with a measly $1.19 million.