Queensland Railways Correspondence
A curated collection of official letters, telegrams, and internal memos documenting the administrative and operational history of the Cleveland Railway Line. These primary sources offer a direct window into the decisions that shaped the region's infrastructure.
​
Please note the use of working names for some stations and subsequent name changes. They are as follows:
Â
Unnamed Station at 50 chainsÂ
Logan Road Station
Â
Logan Road Station
Buranda (name changed in 1917)
Â
Bulimba StationÂ
Morningside (name changed prior to opening)
Â
Tingalpa Station
Mooraree (name changed prior to opening)
Â
Mooraree StationÂ
Murarrie (name changed in 1907)
Â
Waterloo StationÂ
Thorneside (closed in 1890 and reopened in 1917 as Thorneside)
Â
Wellington Station
Wellington Point (name changed in 1901-1902 Financial Year) although known as Wellington Point prior to opening.Â
Professionally Produced Petition in Favour of the Direct Route
11 June 1885
This professionally produced petition of June 1885 supported the Direct Route, then favoured by the Minister for Works and other politicians. Â Other routes under consideration at the time were the Central Route and the Coastal Route. It contained 11 arguments in favour of the route via Coorparoo, Belmont and Capalaba. Arguments included the presence of coal, ironstone and freestone. The coal, it was argued, was "superior to any other in Queensland." The petition also claimed that "large quantities of land have been taken up for mining purposes".Â
​
The text only of this petition appears here.Â
​
Attribution: Queensland State Archives, ID ITM299661
Memo from Chief Engineer to Railway Commissioner Enclosing Compendium of Three Reports on the Proposed Routes for the Cleveland Branch Line
29 March 1886
This Memo would prove integral in determining the ultimate route of the Cleveland Branch Line. The Chief Engineer enclosed three reports written in the previous six months. Examined within were three possible routes - a direct, a central, and a coastal. Â Following these reports, the central route was dismissed leaving the ultimate decision to made between the coastal route, which was ultimately adopted, and the direct route, via Coorparoo, Belmont, and Capalaba.Â
​
The reports enclosed were:
​
1. Dated 5 February 1886 from George Phillips, Inspecting Surveyor. Â We will encounter Phillips again, more than 20 years later, when he was appointed Engineer for Belmont Shire Council's Belmont Tramway.
​
2. Dated 4 November 1885 from H.W. Lethern, Assistant Railway Surveyor in Charge.
​
3. Dated 9 October 1885 from H.W. Lethern, Assistant Railway Surveyor in Charge.
​
Comprising 15 handwritten pages, these reports were at some time partly copied. Â Consequently, they are written in six different hands of varying legibility. To assist in reading, we have also provided a typewritten transcript of the reports. Being entirely legible, there is no transcript for the covering page Memo. Whilst all care has been taken in typing the transcript, readers are advised to consult the originals (or their copies) should they wish to quote directly from them.Â
​
The lithograph plans referred to in the reports, if available, can be found in the Railway Plans section of this website.Â
​
Attribution: Queensland State Archives, ID ITM299661
Petition by Landowners on the Direct (or Straight) Route Offering Their Land for Free
21 MAy 1886
This petition reads:Â "We the undersigned landowners, through whose land the straight route, as now surveyed runs, hereby agree to give the requisite land for the construction of that line free of expense and to execute transfers of the same when requested to do so by the Commissioner for
Railways".
​
Seven signatures appear on the page including the Managing Director of The Grassdale Land Co. Ltd. Â Charles Arnold, owner of portions 209A and 210A (Bulimba Parish), signs "on condition that access is given to the back portion of the land".
​
Attribution: Queensland State Archives, ITM ID 99661
1 june 1886
Petition from Landowners on the Central Route Offering Transfer of Land to the Government
This petition reads :
Â
The Petition of the undersigned Land Owners.
​
Humbly Sheweth.
Â
That  your Petitioners are land Owners on the Central Surveyed Line for Railway from Brisbane to Cleveland on that Portion of the route lying between Bulimba and Tingalpa Creeks.
​
That your Petitioners from their intimate knowledge of the locality Strongly recommend the adoption of the central route as being the most economical in construction and serviceable to the community.
​
That your Petitioners in order to afford every facility are prepared to transfer to the Government the land required for the line.Â
​
That your Petitioners pray you will be pleased to take these premises (sic) into your favourable consideration.
Â
And your Petitioners will every pray.
​
You will note that unlike the petition for  the Direct Route dated 21 May 1886,  the Central Route landowners make no mention of providing their land for free. They merely agree to facilitate the land's transfer. You will also note the irregular use of capitals to commence words.Â
Attribution: Queensland State Archives, ITM ID299661
Report on Cleveland Branch Line Route
17 June 1886
Memo from Chief Engineer Henry C. Stanley to the Commissioner for Railways concerning the two proposed routes for the Cleveland Branch Line. This report is one of the most important documents in the Cleveland Branch's history although it was not acted upon immediately. Note the comment on the left hand side of page one stating "Min. (Minister) says no action at present. 25/6/86)". Â The Cleveland Branch's incubation was long. Although the Parliamentary Plan & Section, which followed Stanley's recommendation, was approved by Parliament in November 1886, contracts for the line's construction were not executed until May 1888.
​
Two routes were examined in this report. The direct route, via Belmont and Capalaba, which roughly followed the Old Cleveland Road, and the coastal route (which was adopted) via Hemmant and Wynnum. The direct route's distance was 17 miles 53 chains, whilst the coastal's route was 21 miles and 11 chains, 3 miles and 38 chains longer. Â A third route via the surveyed Town of Tingalpa had previously been rejected. Â Please note that the Town of Tingalpa, on the west side of the Tingalpa Creek near Capalaba, was never built and is in an entirely different location to the present-day suburb of Tingalpa. To further add to the confusion, Murarrie Station was called Tingalpa during the line's construction. Three Tingalpas in three different locations. Throw the Tingalpa Creek into the mix for utter confusion.Â
​
The Scot's born Stanley's recommendation for the coastal route was ultimately premised on coast's greater population and potential for residential growth, and its proximity to the Lytton Fort, or Battery as he so described it. Â Roughly two and a half miles from the Cleveland Branch, Â Stanley believed that a branch to Lytton was inevitable and would be best accommodated by a short two-mile branch line. Â A Lytton Branch from the direct route would be nearly eight miles over less favourable country. A subsequent 1890 Parliamentary Plan and Section for a branch line to Lytton was rejected. Â It would not be until the mid-1960s that a freight-only Lytton Branch to the Mobil Oil Refinery would be eventually constructed.Â
​
You will note Stanley (or his secretary's) spelling. Coorparoo is consistently spelt phonetically as Cooparoo (without the first R) and Wolloongabba does not omit the first L, unlike the railway station and yard's names (Wooloongabba). Â Evidencing an at times popular late-19th and early 20th Century Australian spelling convention, honour and favour are both spelt without the U.
Â
Attribution: Queensland State Archives, ID ITM 99661Â
​
25 June 1886
Petition by Capalaba Landowners in Favour of the Direct (or Straight) Route
This petition by nine landowners of Capalaba includes the portion numbers of land owned. Â It reads as follows:
​
We the undersigned Landowners on the straight line Cleveland Railway through whose properties a line surveyed through the Township of Tingalpa and Village of Capalaba would pass hereby pledge ourselves to give the requisite land for that purpose and to sign transfers of the same when required and pray the Minister for Works to have such a route surveyed as being the shortest and cheapest and passing through the most Crown Lands and which will meet the requirements of Residents of Tingalpa Creek, Capalaba, Redland (sic) and Mount Cotton.
​
Please note that the Town of Tingalpa was a surveyed township on the west side of the Tingalpa Creek. It was never built and that land now forms part of the suburb of Capalaba. It should not be confused with the present-day suburb of Tingalpa which is located elsewhere.Â
​
The pledge to "give" the requisite land suggests that the petitioners intended to convey the land to the government for free.Â
​
Attribution: Queensland State Archives, ID ITM299661
Petition by Landowners and Residents in Support of the Direct (or Straight) Route
30 JUNE 1886
A petition from residents of Cleveland, Capalaba, Mount Cotton, Redland Bay, Tingalpa, Tingalpa Scrub, Bulimba, Belmont, Coorparoo and South Brisbane in support of the "shortest and straightest route", namely, the Direct Route.  The petition reads of follows:
​
That your petitioners are bona fide residents or property owners in the district affected by the Brisbane to Cleveland Railway and that they had read your words both in and out of Parliament in favor (sic) of a straight route with the greatest satisfaction.Â
​
That that route is the one which will confer the greatest advantages on the greatest number and enable those of us who are farmers & fruit growers to convey our produce to Brisbane which the coastal route will not.
​
That we do not wish to repeat the arguments already laid before you in favor (sic) of the shortest route but wish only to remind you that it will serve by far the greatest number of people, command the most traffic and cost less in construction than the longer line which passes through country principally held by speculators who hope to benefit by the expenditure of public money.Â
​
That had it not been for statements industriously (?) circulated by interested persons that the line is, in opposition to your statements, to be carried round by the coast we should not now have addressed you.
​
That we now pray that the line may be carried by the shortest and straightest route as promised by you at various times and your petitioners will every pray.
​
For context, earlier statements by politicians had suggested that a direct route would be taken to Cleveland.Â
Â
You will see on the last page the signature of Amos Prout. Prout would go on to become a Belmont Shire Councillor. and sometime shire chairman (sic). He served on Council in the 1910s and was a strong proponent of the ill-fated Belmont Tramway (1912-1926). Having lost the battle for the direct Cleveland rail route, this passion re-emerged a quarter of a century later when local lobbying led to Council constructing its own railway along a route similar to Queensland Railways' earlier Direct Route surveys.Â
​
​
Attribution: Queensland State Archives, ID ITM299661
Proposed Station Arrangement Costings
6 august 1888
Correspondence from the Chief Engineer to the Railways Commissioner enclosing costings for Proposed Station Arrangements.
16 August 1886
Petition by Residents of Brisbane and Surrounding Districts for the Early Construction of the Cleveland Branch Line
This petition to the Hon. William Miles, Minister for Works, from residents of Brisbane and surrounding districts reads as follows:
​
Sir - We, the undersigned, being opinion that the early construction of the CLEVELAND RAILWAY LINE is desired by a great majority of the people of Brisbane and surrounding districts, and that the Line would from the very outset prove remunerative, and being convinced that the Government has already in its possession such information as can enable it to decide finally as to the best route,  respectfully urge the desirability of completing the permanent survey as quickly as possible, so that the various papers relating thereto may be laid upon the Table of the House this Session.Â
​
This is the only petition on the Cleveland Line's planning and construction file from persons unconcerned about the route. The petitioners merely seek the line's early construction. This would be facilitated,  they suggest, by an expedited permanent survey  thereby permitting the matter's tabling before the parliament. It appears that the petition's chief proponent(s) must have walked the streets of Brisbane City seeking support. An inordinate number of signatures are from persons with a Queen Street address. Other CBD addresses include Ann, Elizabeth, George, Charlotte and Albert Streets.Â
​
Attribution: Queensland State Archives, ID ITM299661
24 August 1886
Chief Engineer Memo to Railway Commissioner with Updated Lithograph of Direct and Coastal Routes
Chief Engineer, Henry C Stanley, forwards an updated lithograph showing the Direct and Coastal Routes to the Commissioner. Â Arguing for a prompt determination of the route to allow for the tabling of plans before the parliament this session, Stanley reiterates that the Direct Route would be no more than half a mile shorter than the Coastal Route. Â The Coastal Route, he argues, is of superior country and more suitable for close settlement.Â
​
The Lithograph can be found in the Railway Plans section of this website.
​
Attribution: Queensland State Archives, ID ITM299661
27 October 1886
Chief Engineer Memo to Railway Commissioner Describing Cleveland Branch Line and Enclosing Costings
The Chief Engineer's Office appeared to have obtained its first typewriter in the two months between this memo and the one of 24 August 1986.Â
​
Following the final drafting of the Cleveland Branch Line Parliamentary Plan and Section, the Chief engineer prepared this report for the information of the Secretary for Public Work. Â It includes the route, works, materials, country, stations and cost.Â
​
Attached is a handwritten abstract of the approximate cost of construction of the 21 mile and 48 chains long line. The total cost amounted to £105,083 10s 11d.
​
Attribution: Queensland State Archives, ID ITM299661
​
​
27 October 1886
Correspondence Enclosing Resolutions of a Meeting of Cleveland Residents Held at McGlynn's Hotel, 19 March 1887, Seeking Construction of Cleveland Branch Line.Â
By way of correspondence dated 22 March 1887, Â four resolutions passed at a meeting of Cleveland residents on 19 March 1887 were forwarded to Mr. Miles, Minister for Works. Â At their meeting held at McGlynn's Hotel Cleveland, the residents urged Messrs Jordan and Buckland MLAs to present the resolutions to the Minister for Works.
​
The resolutions sought the construction of the Cleveland Branch line as approved by the Queensland Parliament. Economic stimulus and the creation of employment, it was argued, were required as the district suffered from a depressed labour market and the effects of recent flooding. Honest labour was more congenial in the residents' mind than the "praiseworthy assistance of a relief fund".
​
An analysis of historic data suggests that the flooding of late January 1887 was the result of a tropical cyclone which having moved from K'gari (Fraser Island) and down the Sunshine Coast, remained stationary at Brisbane (Jeff Callaghan, Harden Up Queensland).
Proposed Station Arrangement Costings
Station Arrangements Cleveland Line
28 august 1888
Correspondence from the Traffic Manager to Railways Commissioner outlining proposed Station arrangements for the Cleveland Branch.
You will note the mention of Lota Station on page 6 and the absence of any mention of Waterloo (later Thorneside). By August 1889 Lota was omitted from the station listings and Waterloo added. A station at Lota would not open until the 1911/1912 financial year.
Manly, Lota, Birkdale and Ormiston are described as "unimportant places" and a decision on erecting buildings should be left until more details on likely traffic are received.
6 september 1888
Cost of Low Level Platforms for Cleveland Branch
An exasperated Traffic Manager, J. S. Tallon, writes to the Railway Commissioner concerning the cost of the low level platforms proposed for the Cleveland Branch. He disputes the claims that they cost up to 15 shillings per foot. Thallon's estimate of 5 shillings per linear foot was obtained from the Engineer of Existing Lines.
You will note that a secretary with a nice hand writes Thallon's correspondence. The signature and addition at the end of page two are in Thallon's hand. The Scottish born Thallon would go on to become the ninth Railway Commissioner and hold that office from 1902 until his death in 1911.
28 november 1888
Request for Renaming of Tingalpa Station & Provision of Cattle & Sheep Yards
Correspondence from Traffic Manager, Brisbane to Railway Commissioner re renaming proposed Tingalpa Station to Mooraree. Explains that the township of Tingapa is seven miles away and would be served by Birkdale Station. Also discusses the reopening of the Graziers' Butchering Coy at Queensport and conversations with its Mr Baynes. Estimates of sheep and cattle numbers are given, together with requirements for sheep and cattle yards, a loop, loading bank, station staffing and amenities, and gates.
10 november 1896
Request for Branch Line Extension from Cleveland (Central) to Cleveland
Correspondence from the Railway Commissioner to the Secretary of Railways seeking an extension of the Cleveland Branch from its terminus at Cleveland (later to be known as Cleveland Central) to a point closer to the centre of the township. Also discussed is the improbablity of extending the line to Redland Bay in the foreseeable future.