I said I didn't think the loss of the guard's jobs would be an issue, I didn't say there wouldn't be any resistance. I pulled someone up for not including an "IMO" not because they were presenting an opinion (which mine clearly are) but because they were stating things as if they were relaying facts expressed by a third party, when in fact they were only their own personal interpretations of things that had been said previously by that third party, and thus the IMO necessary to qualify that. The IMO is redundant when people are obviously expressing an opinion.
As someone who works in the city, who studies every nook and cranny of every economic development proposal, who understands the overarching aims of such economic development and who gets to see first hand how enthusiastically such development is embraced and how more is constantly being demanded... IMO the loss of probably less than 100 jobs within one railway company in exchange for large direct rolling stock improvements and linked to unlocking economic development potential worth many thousands of jobs from network improvement and expansion will be no competition whatsoever. It is an opinion, but it's one that comes with the benefit of a decent amount of insight.