Re: Macarthur

[Roderick Smith <rodsmith@werple.net.au>]

Why do Australian systems insist on perpetuating inefficient designs, gauranteed
to create future delays.
A station such as Macarthur should have three tracks and four platform faces (two
island platforms): the central track is a terminating one, giving minimum delays
for through traffic, and maximum cross-platform interchange.
Adelaide got it right at Glanville (70 years ago or more), and again at
Brighton.  AFAIK no other system has been as sensible since.
On my own Lilydale line [Melbourne, Vic.] we got wrong layouts at Camberwell in
the 1910s, Blackburn & Box Hill in the 1970s & 80s, and now Ringwood only a
couple of years ago.  Good design is no more expensive than bad design, but
confers long-term benefits.

RNS wrote:

> Some years ago when I was involved in the commuter council  and
> Macarthur station was first mooted I suggested that  a terminating
> road should be provided between the down and up lines to avoid
> delaying main line trains the rail representative stated that this was
> not necessary. As I understand the new arrangement now being
> constructed the terminating road will in fact be the back platform
> road.
> At least it is nice finally being recognised as being right even
> though I will get no official credit for it and they are putting the
> terminating road in the wrong place!
>

--
Regards
Roderick B Smith
Rail News Victoria Editor