The corridor is certainly wide enough, its just you need a full rebuild and yes some heritage listed buildings will need to go or be relocated. If 4 tracks are ever truely needed, I do not expect the heritage listed buildings to stand in the way.

However its a problem for another day as there is a long way to go before Epping is a bottle neck. Epping and the bridge could survive as is for probably another 20 years and the rest of the corridor needs quading first.

But what they did at Epping is not unusual. Look at Thornleigh 1/2 plats. How wide does it need to be?

The issue with impact of the Metro on the traffic flow on the main north was known before and the ECRL had originally solved the Epping 3 plat problem, for me this is the only significant negative of the NWRL Metro concept .

The same curfews are still in place and the same amount of trains are operating. It hasn't doubled anything because you still have the same capacity north of thornleigh. What it has done is provide a passing lane in case a freight train breaks down and you can run more intercity trains because there are more places to pass the all stoppers. Coal trains were regular features before the third track.

Highlighting mine. Thats a lot of money to spend for the off chance a freight train breaks down?

Looking at the documents for the NSFC the justification seems to be an increase in freight paths.

Most of your ideas would have worked if more thought had been given to the 2004-2009 upgrade, this destroyed most possibilities for quadruplication.

Any quadruplication on the western side is out of question, Beecroft road is way too busy and there is no space to change the alignment, the retaining wall on the Beecroft road side is also heritage listed
The current formation of the tracks and platforms on the western side is quite odd, the fenced off side of P3 runs parallel to the bi-direction suburban track (P2) for roughly 5 metres, then veers right to move with the P2 curve. This design also removes most possibilities of quadruplication.

Quadruplication is only possible on the eastern side, one way would be to shift Langston place to the right by 5 or so metres, demolishing the shops on the eastern side to make way, then shaving off all of the area where Langston place used to be and building a new track with a single platform there, then extending the concourse to suit the upgrade. However, this would cost millions and would destroy several local businesses.

I don't think I had said anything about the Western side and work on the embankment, the relocation of the fence on the Eastern Side of #3 platform, along with the cutting of the width of that platform to conform with the narrow Northern end of that platform would create space, especially if platforms 1/2 were also cut back in width.

I mentioned the work was to be carried out on the Eastern side to cut into that sides embankment,  with those areas remodelled there would be enough cut out to allow for the 4 tracks, worst case scenario would be extending 1 & 2 platforms to the north to correspond with #3 platform as far as length is concerned.

By cutting the platform coping back on 1& 2 or moreso between 2 & 3 along with the Langston place side embankment along with the same amount of widening (if needed) should not affect the shops as such.'

If one looks at the amount of vacant space that is to be found just to the North of the whole of the station area, its very doable in getting an extra line through there.  Realistically there is no need for a platform at Epping 1 & 2 platform to be as wide as it is now.

The corridor is certainly wide enough, its just you need a full rebuild and yes some heritage listed buildings will need to go or be relocated. If 4 tracks are ever truely needed, I do not expect the heritage listed buildings to stand in the way.

However its a problem for another day as there is a long way to go before Epping is a bottle neck. Epping and the bridge could survive as is for probably another 20 years and the rest of the corridor needs quading first.

But what they did at Epping is not unusual. Look at Thornleigh 1/2 plats. How wide does it need to be?

The issue with impact of the Metro on the traffic flow on the main north was known before and the ECRL had originally solved the Epping 3 plat problem, for me this is the only significant negative of the NWRL Metro concept .

The width of the platforms are not an issue when all is said and done, rather than looking at Thornleigh, one only needs to look at the likes of Normanhurst, Pennant Hills, Cheltenham, Meadowbank and see the width of those stations.

If a real look at the area is considered, the old Transmission siding on the down side of the line was to become part of the quad line it would allow for some extra distance of track on the freight line, meaning that the section of track that narrows through Epping station area itself is likely to be very much less than a kilometre in length.

This discussion is getting way off topic for this thread, but to continue, I'm sure that there must be a plan within the archives of Railcorp/TfNSW for a 4 platform configuration and tracks through Epping Station.  They did after all designate the underground ECRL platforms as 5 & 6, whereas the surface platforms are 1 to 3.  There is obviously a plan for a future surface platform 4 with quadruplication.  I just wish they'd let us know what it is.  Prior to the ECRL, it was actually the current platform 2 which was fenced off and the western island platforms were 2 & 3.  During construction of the ECRL, the centre track was temporarily out of use and peak hour all stoppers started and terminated at Eastwood which has four platforms.

Quadruplicating the Northern Line between Epping and Hornsby is a long way off, possibly decades, so there is no immediate need for a fourth track and platform at Epping.  Under the current NSFC program, the quad will be completed between North Strathfield and immediately south of Epping station, where it will merge, as it does now, to three tracks between Epping and Hornsby.  It's a mostly downhill run from Hornsby to the quad south of Epping Station, so there shouldn't be any issues with freight traffic keeping pace with Suburban and Intercity passenger services in the Up direction, if you get my meaning.

The main constraint to a fourth track and platform is through the Epping Station footprint.  It's not an issue either side of the station.  It's hemmed in by Beecroft Rd on the west and Langston Place on the east.  A major redevelopment is now under construction on the eastern side of Langston Place opposite the station with three buildings reaching 15, 18 and 29 storeys, so any prospect of expanding the station footprint on that side of the line is out of the question.  There is also a proposal to widen the road bridge across the rail corridor, which really shouldn't be impacted by a fourth track.

However, as I said there must be a plan out there to enable quadruplication through the current Epping Station and I guess we will just have to wait and see what it is.

The discussion on a VFT  has raised a number of opinions and ideas.

The following consists of selected excerpts from a Conference on the subject.

The Very Fast Train seems, to the author, to be losing momentum and, perhaps, to have been diverted to the slow line.

… the panel supported the proposal in principle and noted that the present Melbourne-Sydney rail link had been neglected in terms of investment, and that such a link could form an important aspect of Australia’s economic future.

… a call was made by the Australian Conservation Foundation. The foundation, “supports the concept of a high speed rail system between Sydney and Melbourne, via Canberra, provided it can be established in an environmentally-sensitive manner.

In terms of freight it (the VFT) is not expected to have a significant impact. This because the VFT will be competing for the high value, time sensitive freight market. Today. This market is held by the airlines and the overnight road freight system, which is already highly competitive.

A VFT would have large implications on the airline economics if successful. The opening of the airline industry to competition is likely to lead to lower fares, and thus reduce the desirability of the VFT.


As a matter of academic interest, this conference took place in March 1990, and this report has been taken from "Newsrail" , October 1990.
There's nothing new under the sun eh?

In the current climate neither air or rail passenger travel would seem to be the way forward. rail freight on the other hand is where the biggest gains to the economy could be made.

In the current climate neither air or rail passenger travel would seem to be the way forward. rail freight on the other hand is where the biggest gains to the economy could be made.

Well a VFT is a 50 year project who's planning isn't based on year long economic down turn. However what needs to be considered is the future of work, how much work has now shifted from the office, to home, permanently.

While its hard work to commute +2h each way a day on top of a 10h a day job (personal experience), its not so hard if you have to go into the office only 1 -3 days a week or less as this would likely increase your tolerance to a long commute is less and you may even elect to commute even longer distances in preference to more affordable lifestyle options.

Therefore I think we may see a partial shift in focus by the govt from suburban commuting to improving the commuting to outer interurban and semi rural areas between Mel and Brisbane as the "Great Green Change migration" gets underway.

More like work has shifted from the orifice, to a cliff faster than high speed rail.