Skip to main content

State Significant Infrastructure

Collate Submissions

Inland Rail - Albury to Illabo

Albury City, Wagga Wagga City, Junee Shire, Lockhart Shire, Greater Hume Shire

Current Status: Collate Submissions

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

Enhancement works to structures and sections of track along 185 kilometres of existing operational standard gauge rail from the Victorian/New South Wales border to Illabo in regional NSW. The project forms part of the Inland Rail project.

Attachments & Resources

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Application (3)

SEARs (1)

EIS (57)

Response to Submissions (8)

Agency Advice (10)

Amendments (13)

Additional Information (1)


Showing 1 - 20 of 145 submissions
John Hickey
Albury Station Footbridge.
Concern as to impact on existing old signal box as follows.
Widening of bridge to bring it closer to signal box when existing bridge crossing freeway is narrower. Will this widening effect security of signal box and restrict ability to restore and maintain building.
Is it possible to deviate the new bridge northwards to allow greater separation from box by pivoting the western span of the new bridge.
What is the program to protect the signal box structure and its restoration ?
What is meant by term “maintained” in terms of Visual impact operations on page 59 of Project Fact Sheet.
DOWNSIDE , New South Wales
Inland Rail - Albury to Illabo section
Thank you for considering my submission.
I am a 55 yr old dryland cropping & lamb producing farmer. I live on the 1000ac property, settled by my father’s father after he returned from WW1, then purchased, by my parents after two of my father’s three older brothers returned from WW2, then in 2010, purchased by me. I’ve never written a submission in my life.
I love rail. I also love big infrastructure projects. As well as operating our farm, I also own & operate an interstate semi-trailer, just the prime mover & one tri-axle trailer. People can’t understand as a truckie, why I like rail, but it’s so much more efficient on key freight tasks & safer.
I was thrilled when Inland Rail was announced & have enjoyed the debate over it’s path, enduring the clumsy presentation of it’s development to the general public. Personally I believe the route should be further west inland, picking up Shepparton up through Victoria & Narrandera in NSW, but now it’s coming up through Wagga Wagga, so that’s that.
After decades of neglect, watching Bathurst/Orange & Albury/Wodonga benefit as regional growth areas, Wagga Wagga has finally been acknowledged, being chosen for a Special Activation Precinct (SAP). The SAP is one of the countries best kept secrets, but as the Riverina Intermodal Freight & Logistics Hub (RIFL) currently being constructed at Bomen as part of the SAP eventuates, we are slowly becoming aware of it’s importance & future benefit. I reckon the whole SAP would be better another 5 or 10 km further to the north, not only to be further out from the expanding Wagga Wagga city urban sprawl, but also to be less land-locked & able to easily expand if required. However, the RIFL & SAP construction is well underway, so Bomen is where it’s going to be.
I’ve read most of the Wagga Wagga SAP stage 1 Delivery Plan – March 2022. In particular, I’m disappointed that section 4 – Infrastructure, only details infrastructure within the SAP & doesn’t even hint at supporting road or other infrastructure, outside of the actual SAP site.
I cannot believe that the Inland Rail plan through the city of Wagga Wagga is straight up the existing single Sydney – Melbourne line right through the Central Business district & over the ancient, speed restricted Murrumbidgee floodplain viaduct.
The existing old rail corridor used to be on the southern end of the early Wagga Wagga settlement, but Wagga Wagga has grown.
The old single line Sydney- Melbourne line now cuts right through the northern quarter of the current city. It runs within a couple of houses of the completely re-built Wagga Wagga Base Hospital & skirts the recently defined Wagga Wagga Health Precinct, including the two hospitals & countless specialist Health service providers practices & centres.
The existing line also runs through two major arterial roads at level crossings, which for years yet as passenger rail services have declined have continued to be sites of minor & major collisions.
In addition, the old line is the southern boundary to the South Wagga Wagga primary school & the Northern boundary to the Kildare Catholic College, with one of the three road bridges right in between these two schools, squeezing students beside road & over rail traffic.
As Wagga Wagga has sprawled out across the surrounding country, I’ve been disappointed to watch even recent housing, be developed right up to the existing rail corridor. I would have thought it would be smart to plan buffer areas along existing rail corridor (& maybe there is), but so many homes are right beside the existing line.
Then, there’s the Viaduct. According to our older residents, the existing single line flood-free steel viaduct was built around 1900, over 120 years ago. I remember that about thirty years ago, the original steel uprights were encased in concrete, supposedly to carry heavier trains.
After leaving school & before returning to farming, I worked for Woolworths Supermarkets, starting in the year of the Fresh Food People launch. In safety training at Woolies, the rule was, Separate & be safe.
Instead of slowing these new longer, higher freight trains & running them right through the city, very close to countless family homes, hospitals, schools & over the ancient viaduct along the one single line, making Wagga Wagga a bottleneck for the prestigious Inland Rail Project, why not Separate & be Safe ?
I suggest that Inland rail take the opportunity to build a visionary new viaduct, new road over passes & new rail, all double track, bypassing the Wagga Wagga CBD. Instead of being the bottleneck, Wagga Wagga would be the example, removing the Inland through freight out of the CBD & at full speed to it’s destination. With the new Wagga Wagga rail bypass completed as double track, the recently constructed passing lanes could then be expanded to eventually make Albury to Junee & therefore the whole corridor double track, removing the bottleneck.
I propose the Rail by-pass would from the south;
-merge off the current line just north of the new Kapooka bridge slightly to the west
-Continue north, parallel to the Olympic Way, crossing over the Sturt Highway
- then a new viaduct continue north, cross the Murrumbidgee over a new bridge, continue &curve left, now heading east, a bridge over hopefully two Gobba road bridges, then continue on new viaduct east
-Before gradually turning back north to merge back onto the existing line just south of Bomen hill.

Planning infrastructure is key to maintaining the ease of commuting in & around Wagga Wagga.
To maintain the liveability of life in a country city which attracts families to places like Wagga Wagga, both rail & road infrastructure must be planned & built for the present & into the future. Wagga Wagga desperately needs the Gobba bridge duplicated now as well as East-West through traffic able to by-pass North & South (or above or even under), congested Edward Street & the city’s CBD to safely arrive at their destination.
Plan, build & deliver important rail & road infrastructure to take through traffic away from family homes & our city CBD. Separate & be safe.

David Meiklejohn
16 September, 2022
Name Withheld
I object as I there has not been enough disclosure as to effects the inland rail will have on the town and working it out after it is built is effectively shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.. Vibration mitigation, Noise Mitigation, Length of wait at level crossing will all be increase and will cut NSW's largest inland city in half. No benefit to residents of Wagga as the intermodal hub will only increase road trucks moving containers.
There is a great potential that if this proposal proceeds then any property adjacent to the rail corridor will suffer a loss of quiet enjoyment and amenity with no mitigation options planned, costed or funded, and with a potential loss of property value no compensation has been considered or offered.
ARTC have not given any consideration to the residents of Wagga for this once-in-multi generation-project. Once completed it will and cannot be altered and Wagga will be left a divided city. what happens when Police/ambulance or fire are stuck on the wrong side of help with the extra wait times the longer and heavier trains will make it dangerous. Level crossing are a thing of the past and for a long time the State and Federal Governments have advocated change making them longer and more frequent is not conducive with this. Effectively if this goes forward all Wagga has to look forward to is increased waiting times from boom down to boom up with their advertised increased frequency. An alternate route must be found.
Chris Roche
WAGGA WAGGA , New South Wales
The residents of Wagga request The Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) to divert the intend route of the Inland Rail from going through the Wagga CBD to going around the Wagga CBD, creating a Wagga ARTC Bypass.
The intended route for the Inland Rail is to use the existing railway line from Bomen, through the Wagga CBD, then to the new Kapooka Bridge.
Our suggested route is to connect the Wagga ARTC Bypass to the current railway at or near Bomen’s TEYS Abattoir to the north of Wagga, and near the new Kapooka Bridge to the south of Wagga (see “Inland Rail Alternate Route around Wagga CBD” below).
By 2040, ARTC estimates that the trains will be up to 3.6kms long and the number of trains will also increase to over 20 trains a day (A2I EIS – Chapter 1 Introduction ( Currently the trains travelling through Wagga are up to 1.7kms long and up to 12 trains per day.
There are four main reasons for requesting an alternate route:
1. Edmondson Bridge Upgrade:
As part of the construction of the ARTC Inland rail, the current Edmondson Bridge will need to be replaced with a larger bridge that can accommodate the trains having double-stacked shipping containers on them.
The construction of the new bridge will take 9 months, meaning that all cars that use the Edmondson Bridge will have to find a detour, which will lead to an increase in the traffic on the other roads that also cross the railway line. Also in the construction phase, the ARTC Environment Impact Statement (ARTC EIS) acknowledges that “construction at the enhancement site would result in low-to-high impacts at up to 1,758 residential receivers during standard and OOH periods” (A2I EIS – Chapter 15 Noise and vibration ( page 26), ensuring there will be loud construction noise during the day and some nights for the residents living near the bridge. This includes the staff and students at South Wagga Public School, Kildare Catholic School and Wagga Wagga High School.
Also, when the new bridge is built, it will be up to 2.8 metres taller than the current bridge (see “Edmondson Bridge (with pink high indicator)” picture). This means that:
- The ramp from the Edward Street intersection to the peak of the bridge will be steeper, potentially leading to increase accidents for traffic driving north and coming to a steep stop at the Edward Street intersection
- The pedestrians, mostly school children, will have a steeper walk to and from the bridge
2. Bourke Street Crossing Blockages:
With the ARTC Inland Rail trains being longer than the current trains and an increase in the number of trains, this will lead to longer and more often wait times whilst the trains are passing through the Bourke & Fernleigh Road crossings. This should be considered considering the city’s main ambulance station in on Fernleigh Road and the main Hospital is on Edward Street, on the opposite sides of the Bourke Street crossing. The question is if an ambulance has to transport a critical patient from the southern suburbs of Wagga (which are growth areas), how will they get directly to the hospital when a 3.6km long freight train is crossing the Bourke St crossing? These traffic stoppages will negatively affect the flow of traffic from the central Wagga district to the southern suburbs of Wagga (Lloyd, Bourkelands, etc).
3. Noise & Vibration Effects throughout the Construction Phase and Ongoing Inland Rail Trains:
“When Inland Rail is operational it will have the potential to generate noise for residents in locations including their own homes, schools and in hospitals” (Inland Rail Managing noise and vibration fact sheet - Inland Rail ( This extra noise may be exacerbated because the number, length and weight of trains will be increasing.
“We acknowledge the operation and maintenance of Inland Rail will have noise impacts for local communities. The draft noise and vibration modelling during construction and operation for areas around the project’s enhancement work sites has been completed” (Noise and vibration modelling - Inland Rail (
“The locations where predicted rail noise levels exceed the RING airborne noise criteria consist of: Scots School Albury, seven dwellings in Henty, the Headlie Taylor Header Museum, Yerong Creek Public School, Kildare Catholic College in Wagga Wagga, South Wagga Public School, Junee Baptist Church, Junee North Public School and the Illabo Public School. These exceedances are driven by an increase in daytime LAeq rail noise levels due to increased rail volumes forecast for the day period (7am to 10pm)” (Technical Paper 7 – Operational noise and vibration (rail) (
The concern here is what about the increase in night-time noise due to the increase in the occurrence, weight and length of the trains, noting the existing surrounding noise is reduced in the evening. This will have a detrimental effect on the surrounding residents’ sleeping habits. Also the effect of the resulting vibrations on the surrounding residents along the rail line will be increased due to the heavier, longer and increased occurrence of the freight trains.
4. Safety Concerns at Bourke St & Fernleigh Road crossing due to an increase in rail traffic, and extended weight and length of the trains. These extended delays are going to cause extended traffic wait times and force traffic to find alternative detours that will go through residents’ roads, creating “rat runs” in these surrounding alternative routes.
The ARTC Inland Rail Environment Impact Statement acknowledges there needs to be a lot of construction and mitigation works to enable the route to commence through Wagga. I suggest it would be more beneficial financially to consider and develop a bypass, as compared to the impacts of the suggested construction and mitigation works needed for the route to continue through the Wagga CBD centre.
Yet a solution that leads to less disruption to the surrounding affected residents is to amend the rail route to bypass Wagga’s CBD District. Whilst there would be an upfront cost of building the bypass over flood plains and crossing major roadways, the long-term impacts on the residents of the Wagga would be greater if the rail was allowed to go through the centre of Wagga.
Whilst the Inland Rail will have a large financial boost for the Australian and local community, the potential impacts on the surrounding affected residents need to also be considered and potentially mitigated by utilizing a bypass.
Gordon Murray
BRUCEDALE , New South Wales
I applaud the initiative to establish an efficient inland rail system. As with all major projects, this one comes with negative consequences along with the positives. To be successful, the system must carry large amounts of freight, involving frequent passage of long, heavily laden trains travelling at relatively high speed. When travelling through towns, this will impact quality of life for residents through increased noise (sound and vibration), air pollution and disruption to traffic through lengthy and frequent closures of level crossings.
As a Wagga Wagga resident, I find these avoidable consequences unacceptable. Already, you will have received numerous comments on these issues from others.
Keeping the rail route to its current path through the city will mean that these serious negative consequence will impact Wagga Wagga for the long term. There is an immediate cost to re-routing the line to avoid crossing the city centre, but this must be balanced against the long term cost of not doing this.
Wagga Wagga is also split by the Sturt Highway, with traffic congestion occurring where north-south traffic meets the east-west highway. Additionally, the single river crossing of the Gobba Bridge already poses congestion problems.
I propose a new route for the rail that will incorporate part of the road bypass with the rail track. Others have proposed making the rail track branch from the present one north of Kapooka to pass over the Sturt Highway near its McNIckle Road junction and then to Bomen. If the rail bridge over the Murrumbidgee River and elevated track over the flood plain also incorporated the bypass roadway, this would create the western link of the road bypass. The road bypass could then continue along existing roads to the Eunony Bridge. Much of this road could be over the flood plain as is the present Eunony Bridge connection.
The Inland Rail is a nation building exercise. It is imperative to get it right and not cost cut for expediency. Fixing a mistake is far more costly than avoiding it.
F McNickle
Grenfell , New South Wales

24th September 2022

I would like to submit my objection to this project coming through central Wagga as I believe the Inland Rail will Wreck our Community.

There is no way that this project will only have minimal impact on our town and our lives.
I believe the ARTC has been deliberate in its miscommunication with locals & has been very vague in sharing information with the press overall.

The ARTC had what they call a ‘Consultation’ last month at the Wagga Library with 30 residents in attendance, held at very short notice with minimal advertising. I was unable to attend as I was working like so many others at that time of day, but some attendees I have conversed with about the meeting felt as though it was really an opportunity to hand out a glossy brochure to the small gathering which only heard about it on the ABC radio that morning and the meeting was held 11.00 -1pm. Those same people said to me that the ARTC reps were arrogant with an air of ‘this project is done and dusted so we don’t have to converse with these people seriously at all’!

This Project may have been announced for several years, but it is a fabrication of the truth to say that there have been 30 meetings with the Council, and if there have been, the local Council has been blindsided by the ARTC project until now and I support their submission.

I am a local homeowner and small business owner & even I can see that my small business will be affected by the change in traffic as I try and make my way through the already busy arterial roads around Wagga during my working day. This will cut our town in two, literally.

The railway has gone through Wagga pretty much unnoticed since the overpass was installed on Edward St many years ago, apart from a couple of Crossings (ie Docker St and Fernleigh Road) trains have not been an issue. What the ARTC is proposing will disrupt our quality of life and our safety as we travel through town each day.

How will it cope with the increased traffic with the proposed work that this Project says it will be undertaking ie. replacing the bridge at Edmonston St and the associated traffic at the nearby High Schools not to mention all the school buses at the busiest times of the day?

There is no way that a growing city like Wagga, with its increasing population, will be able to run smoothly at the busiest times of the day (examples being pre-school hours and post-school hours) when traffic is already backed up at Lake Albert Road Underpass which is where I presume all the traffic is going to go as it won't be able to cross Edmonston St due to the work there !

The idea of the Inland Rail travelling through central Wagga has been thought up by people who have no experience of living here in the town in which it will affect the most, Wagga Wagga.

There will be major issues on all these major intersections several times a day, and I believe with intersections like Docker St, it will be more dangerous than it already is.

I implore you to find another way to make the Inland Railway work by creating a Bypass.


Mrs Bernadette Bodel
Richard Foley
I as a citizen of Wagga Wagga and a councillor who is elected to sit of the Wagga Wagga City Council representing 70,000+ people of this city object to the Albury to Illabo EIS scope of works as proposed by the ARTC on the following grounds.

1. Why has operational noise and vibration not been considered for the full length of the corridor, when noise and vibration will have impacts along the full corridor from the increase of rail operations brought about by Inland Rail?
2. If monitoring of noise and vibration from rail operations is to occur once operation commences, what is the associated timeframe for the studies to occur and timeline for mitigation actions to be taken?
3. Why have the sensitive receivers affected by ground-borne noise been discounted and is ground-borne noise within the relevant thresholds?
4. Why has an empirical study of noise and vibration in the Wagga Wagga area not been undertaken to validate or calibrate the modelling which was used to assess impacts?
ARTC has provided nothing in relation to the 4 points above.

No consideration has been given in the EIS for the potential adverse operational impacts on emergency services, specifically response and travel times. The potential for emergency vehicles to stuck in queued traffic for excessive periods of time is highly likely to worsen. This is a hugely significant overlooked issue considering the adjacent Health & Knowledge Precinct; centred around Docker Street and the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital.

The review of traffic and transport impacts by our council officers has raised the following questions:

1. Why has no consideration been given to the fact that trains are likely to not pass- through Wagga Wagga at top-speed? WWCC data has proven this claim to be false.
2. What is the threshold for vehicle delay or vehicle queuing which would warrant consideration of grade-separation for Fernleigh Road and Bourke/Docker Street?
3. What is the correct planned number of expected train movements through Wagga in 2025 and 2040? Will there be a limit on the number of daily movements allowed through Wagga Wagga?
4. Why have the additional delays caused by trains stopping/slowing through Wagga Wagga not been considered in the analysis of on-grade level crossings?
5. Why has the impact of the long term40km/h speed restriction 3km from a non-grade crossing not been considered in the EIS? This has caused longer closure times at Bourke/Docker crossing.
6. What guarantees can be given that a temporary speed restriction in the vicinity of an on-grade crossing will be rectified in a timely manner as to limit the impacts to the crossing? As shown by the restriction on the viaducts a temporary restriction may remain in place more than five years.
7. What are the cumulative costs associated with the additional delay’s which will occur at the on-grade crossings in Wagga Wagga?
8. Why have operational impacts on emergency services not been considered?
ARTC has provided zero answers to the above 8 points.

The following questions have been raised regarding operational air pollution:

1. Why has operational air pollution been considered only at enhancement sites,when operations will occur along the full length of the railway?
2. Why has the assumption been made that operational air pollution impact will be negligible within 50m of the rail track, when no qualitive or quantitative data was used to make this assumption?
3. Why was no quantitative assessment undertaken of operational air pollution for the project, when there are many unique characteristics of rail operation for this project.
4. Is there potential for increased train idling at Bomen, due to the increased rail traffic using the single line and why was this not directly considered in the report?
The ARTC has provided zero answers to the above 4 points in their EIS.

The following operational questions have not been directly addressed in any section of the EIS, but are relevant nonetheless:
1. A2I Is being constructed with future provision for 3,600m trains, extension of crossing loops would be required prior to these operations commencing. What guarantee can be given that if/when these extensions are undertaken and operations begin, a sound
EIS will be undertaken for the full-length of the corridor considering operational impact? That these extension works will not be treated as discrete ‘enhancement works’ and the running of 3,600m trains will not be treated as an operational decision by ARTC? What assurances and evidence will be given that an approval process will take place for the commencement of 3,600m trains on Inland Rail and requests information on the operational restrictions of ARTC to run trains at lengths past 1800m prior to such an approval process?
2. What guarantees exist that the assessment to run trains of lengths greater than 1800m will have scope to assess traffic and transport impacts on all intersecting roads and will have scope to grade separate road crossings if required?
3. What additional information exists on whether small incremental increases in train lengths would occur beyond 1800m?
4. I greatly dispute the suggestion by ARTC that “the proposal would not result in any change in operation of the existing rail network” and believes that the priority allocated to Inland Rail Express and Super-freighter services would result in detrimental impacts on regional passenger train scheduling and operations. Further the amenity of the City of Wagga Wagga would be massively impacted!
5. I note that the EIS assessments are entirely based on a predicted 22 total train movements each 22 hours compared to 16 currently. Should IR be successful in its initiatives the number of daily train movements could potentially increase beyond 22, making the assessments of the EIS redundant. Will there be a maximum number of daily train movements allowed through Wagga Wagga and what is this number?
The ARTC has not answered any of the above 5 points in their EIS.

For all of the above reasons I utterly oppose the ARTC EIS and their proposed scope of works. The newly elected ALP Federal Government is shortly going to be doing a full review of the Inland Rail Project and therefore it is clearly imperative that this Albury to Illabo scope of works be halted until that review is made by the appointed Independent Reviewer.

As an active opponent of the current ARTC EIS scope of works I hold the firm view as does many of my local constituents and citizens if Wagga Wagga that the Inland Rail MUST be bypassed around the City of Wagga Wagga and linked into the Bomen Special Activation Precinct. The most appropriate and cost effective bypass would be in my view via the South-East from Uranquinty around the south of Wagga Wagga and hooking around behind the RAAF Base and down across the Murrumbidgee River up into the Bomen SAP.
As a councillor of the City of Wagga Wagga I will be continuing my activism to achieve the political outcomes to ensure that this important nation building project the Inland Rail is built properly with community concerns noted and heeded and making sure the Inland Rail is future proofed for the next century.

Yours faithfully,

Councillor Richard Foley
Glenn Boyd
When I look on a map of the current rail line route , entering and exiting Wagga, it really does look like the most obvious route . It looks streamline , flowing and has served this area well ,with XPT and the regular freight that passes through Wagga.
My understanding of this inland rail freight which is being built to accommodate double deck container freight, is the freight that would normally be sent by road, so it’s in addition to whatever freight is currently passing through Wagga, which previously would travel along the Hume Highway. The advent of double decking the containers , might not be happening at first, but will happen in the future.
I , as well as many other Waggaites, strongly object to not only the initial alterations to some of our cross roads ( Best Street overpass; the long wait times for car traffic at Bourke/ Docker Street – that road should be made into an underpass – at the expense of a few houses gone to make Coleman Street merge into Bourke Street at about the Athol Street intersection- Might require a bilge pump at the dip in the road- Chaston Street gradient made to fit in the the underpass; the possible raising of the Glenfield road overpass and lastly, the Fernleigh Road rail crossing,which would be great if that was a road underpass as well. This whole rail corridor , might need to have unsightly concrete side walls to direct train noise upwards, away from residences). Some of the above mentioned is a great upheaval of the this cities daily workings, albeit short term ,1 year ?? except the last part ,about the noise barriers ,of which, will be with us forever.
Could not a new rail be directed from the Bomen Hub, to direct towards the back of the Charles sturt University (prior that , it would cross the Olympic Way Highway )/ around the back of new Estella suburb/across Old Narandera Road ( a road less travelled, so either a traditional crossing, or under or overpass /across the river/cut through farmland ( not so appealing to farmers though)/underpass the Sturt Highway, some where westward of the motocross course, at an area where the highway already rises, thus an easy alteration/ again , cut through farmland ( farmers still not happy) and merge the new line back to the existing line somewhere just past The Rock township, on the straight section towards Yerong Creek.
Either directional routes ( through Wagga or around Wagga) will cost a mint, but if ‘ around Wagga’ , then Wagga can carry on , with minimal interference. The fear is that Wagga will cop additional freight travelling through to Melbourne ,just because it’s in your path and you deem it to be most logical , cost efficient route and “ Sorry Wagga, but we’re coming through”. Wagga still gets road freight travelling through from Sydney to Adelaide and that will still be the case, after the inland rail ( Brisbane to Melbourne ) goes through.( would be great if Wagga had a truck ( Sydney to Adelaide ) bypass).
I’m unsure of a distance required for a curve to the right to head west from the Bomen’s hub ( ie:- go around the back of the university). Perhaps the ‘ Hub’ should have been situated further north, somewhere at the intersection of Byrnes Road & Shephard Siding road, to enable a good curve towards the west.
A western line route would need to take into account as to how far west,from the ‘ever expanding ‘ west Estella/ Sunrise estate. Cutting through farmland will possibly be an issue of objection from farmers.
I tend to put all options on the table and dismiss non viables and work with what’s still on the table.
I have no objection to the existing rail line through Wagga. It brings the XPT right to our doorstep and freight does pass through. So that situation could still continue, while the new inland rail project skirts Wagga.
Alternatively, in view of Wagga’s future expansion, perhaps the whole rail corridor through Wagga, could be demolished and the Bomen hub made to accommodate XPT and ‘ other’.
Keep the ‘ historical railway station’ and a small section of rial line for museum purposes and repurpose the remainder of the corridor/ parkland / convention center/ apartments …. Etc.
The Wagga community wants inland rail project to get ONBOARD with this. Don’t just railroad us for your gain and to Wagga’s loss.
John Goonan
KOORINGAL , New South Wales
I support the concept of an inland rail route. Passing through Narrandera and Griffith rather than Wagga makes more sense to me.
I also believe it will have a permanent detrimental effect on Wagga. 1.8km trains will result in loss of life when ambulances are held up at the two ground level crossings. The vibrations to to Kildare College and South Wagga primary will be damaging.
The traffic chaos as bridges are raised is almost incomprehensible.
Elissa Mitchell
TURVEY PARK , New South Wales
I currently live at and own 9 Erin Street, Turvey Park, which backs onto the proposed Inland Rail. I have a number of objections to the project including
- Value of my property. I am concerned the additional noise of the traffic on the Edmundson Street overpass and noise of the extra and bigger trains would devalue my property. The loss of privacy with the higher Edmundson Street overpass will also decrease property value.
- Privacy at my property. I am concerned about the lack of privacy from an increase in road level with the higher Edmundson Street overpass. Traffic will be able to see directly into my back yard, deck and house.
- Noise. I am concerned about additional noise from both trains on the line and traffic due to the proposed higher overpass. I am also concerned about vibration damage to windows and my 1930s home. I am also concerned about construction noise.
- Construction traffic. I am concerned about construction traffic and extra vehicles around my home that I feel may pose a safety risk to my two small children aged 2 and 4.
Lyn Slack
WAGGA WAGGA , New South Wales
It needs to be re-routed and not go through the largest inland city in NSW. Wagga has alternative land out near Bomen where this train line will be collecting and dropping off its key product, so it only makes sense for it to go through this area. If the highways are diverted passed all the major towns then why is the rail line any different. I don't think it is sustainable for the people who live in the heritage listed areas for the line to come through on the current line structure which currently goes through old areas of town. These areas of town have many old properties with old footings and with the larger trains coming through, this has potential for ground movement that can affect the footings of the homes. If there is going to be potential damage to older homes in the areas as a result of the larger trains coming through Wagga instead of an alternative area such as Bomen, will the NSW Government financially support the maintenance and required upkeep of homes that are damaged by your rail line and larger trains, especially when there are alternative options available. This also has the potential to reduce our properties value.
Name Withheld
My concern regarding the inland rail project is traffic flow. I reside in Wooden st Turvey Park and currently I can access the CBD via Bourke st or Edmundson st , with the closure of one of the major roads all traffic will be diverted to Bourke st . The speed limit was raised from 50 kms to 60 kms outside the Showground , right hand turn at the end of Wooden st now takes longer to navigate and will be impossible with the increased traffic once the project to raise the height of the Edmondson bridge commences. How does the project intend to handle this problem or will it be fobbed off the another the contractors that are not locals and have no understanding of the frustrations that will arise the the closure of the road for 8 to 9 months.
Why is it not possible to build a new line from Kappoka bridge across Frog Hollow cross the river parallel to the Gobba bridge then onto Bomen?
Let’s hope the an endangered frog habitat is located under the bridge at Edmundson st ! Although I am providing comments I also object to part of the project.
Name Withheld
TURVEY PARK , New South Wales
To Whom It May Concern,

We am writing as residents that live very close to the railway in Turvey Park, Wagga Wagga.

We have many concerns in regards to this major project. Mostly surrounding the noise and vibrations. We believe there is not enough mitigation in regards to this issue. Once operational it is stated that in the summary of findings noise and vibrations will exceed industry standards at Kildare Catholic College. The school is in fact two streets over from our residential house and we are in fact closer to the railway than the school. We find it very hard to comprehend the different noise standards for schools and residential properties. We have spoken to a noise specialist at the meeting held in Junee on the 18th of August 2022 who suggested it was because of students studying… we just don’t understand how that is more impactful than families sleeping and/or studying at home. As residents this is our home we are here a lot of the time not to mention I am a shift worker as a registered nurse at the hospital and have to sleep during the day. How are students who are at Kildare from 9am-3pm more affected. We believe we will also be greatly impacted. As the video shows, there is a train sitting outside our house for 20 minutes at 12am. The vibrations and noise were felt the entire time as you can hear and we are very concerned that this type of event will greatly increase in frequency and severity and start to impact on not only our life but our physical and mental health. How can the infrastructure be considered up to standard for these double stacked long freight trains when we are already having these issues with much smaller freight trains. Yes, we understand the trains travelling through at the moment are normal and we accept that, what we do not accept is that it is going to increase and greatly impact our lives. Particularly in the night.

We bought our house last year and we specifically emailed in land rail to find out what was happening and was told that it would be by 2040 when everything would be operational. This as you would agree isn’t the case, it will be a lot quicker than 2040. Unfortunately we would never have purchased our property knowing what we do now and its a real shame for us that everything wasn’t more transparent.

Why is there no potential for sounds absorbing screens through the CBD? There are examples of this mitigation technique throughout the world. Wagga is not a small town, it is one of the biggest inland cities in Australia and for this not to be considered is a large oversight. In the summary of findings page 24, it states that ‘increase in noise exceeding operational noise criteria around the school is to be confirmed by monitoring when operational’. Confirming once operational confirms to us that the necessary testing hasn’t been undertaken nor have you considered the impact on local residents.

Thank you for your time.
Carol Ingram
As a resident of the western end of Coleman Street in Wagga, very close to the Bourke Street intersection and within metres of the level crossing on Bourke/ Docker streets, I am very concerned about three aspects of the inland Rail project.
• INCREASED TRAFFIC IN OUR RESIDENTIAL STREET - traffic along the Bourke / Docker corridor is already congested and will only get more so with the increasing development south of the city. It will become impossible for us to exit from Coleman Street onto Bourke when a 1,800metre train passes causing a bank up of traffic in both directions. Impatient drivers will inevitably want to bypass the crossing and our street will become a thoroughfare. Right hand turns from Bourke into Coleman are very dangerous given the blind spot just north of the crossing. Please make the western end of Coleman Street a cul-de-sac or put in an under- or over- pass of the railway.
•NOISE AND VIBRATION - the increased frequency of passing trains and the fact that trains will be longer and heavier will impact the amenity of our property which is directly opposite the line. We already experience rattling windows when some trains pass and heavier ones will surely cause greater vibration. What will be offered by way of mitigating this?
•TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN BOURKE/ DOCKER STREETS BETWEEN THE LEVEL CROSSING AND STURT HWY - as the main route to town for many of the new ( and proposed) southern developments, this strip has become increasingly busy especially during peak periods.
With a hospital just north of the level crossing and a new hospital carpark (with Docker Street access) to create even more traffic congestion, the complication of longer wait times and more frequent trains along this corridor is a major concern.
I am fearful that in an attempt to mitigate traffic congestion on the highways, we are creating more concerning traffic congestion in our city.
Thomas Lemerle
KOORINGAL , New South Wales
Dear Max Obiakor, I write to you today as a concerned resident of Wagga Wagga. I have called Wagga my home for my entire life and want to see the best outcome for our city, and particularly the Central Business District protected. The rail line through Wagga has always been a positive feature of our City, however, as the city grows bigger and bigger this positive outlook becomes threatened. I believe that pushing a double-stack and double-track line through the centre of an old City, where it was never intended, simply cannot end well. I am supportive of the Objectives, Needs and benefits of Inland Rail broadly and believe they are undeniable. What concerns me deeply is a state-significant one-in-a-generation project like this having long-lasting negative effects on the city I call home. I note the EIS, which is the subject of this submission, only considers operational noise and vibration within a 2-kilometre radius of where construction/ enhancement works are proposed to happen. Why is this the case when most of Wagga’s population live and work within 2 kilometres of the rail line. I would suggest this is because if the entire 6.3km corridor through Wagga, Red Hill Road Rail Underpass to Murrumbidgee River Bridge for reference, was considered in the EIS, it would become an unacceptable proposal. I live within 1.1km of the rail line and my office is 600 metres from the trail line. This project has the potential to significantly disrupt my daily life with excessive noise and vibration
I also note that whilst it is only expected the trains will increase by 8 a day from 2040 onwards, the size of the trains, (3,600 metres) the noise and vibration they produce, is what is concerning me. Again, coming back to the 6.3km long stretch of track, this means each train would span more than half the length of the CBD. This hardly seems like a reasonable proposal commensurate to the size and scale of the existing infrastructure and the City as a whole.
To conclude, Inland Rail’s submission states that the residual impacts of the proposal are outweighed by the long-term benefits. But I disagree, any residual impacts, which are not well defined or transparent in the submission, are unacceptable to the residents of Wagga. In addition, Inland rail’s submission further hides behind a lack of design and construction details, stating the D&C methodology will continue to be developed with the objective of further minimising potential impacts, considering the input of stakeholders and the community. My concern is what happens if this objective is not met, Wagga residents are left holding a disruptive scar on our beautiful city. How can this justification be accepted if it clear from submissions like mine and media coverage, that stakeholders and the community are not satisfied with the proposal details or potential residual impacts.
Clare Wotherspoon
Wagga Wagga , New South Wales
Dear Sir/Madam,

I write with extreme concern and opposition over the planned inland rail through the city of Wagga Wagga. As a resident on the Southern side of the line I oppose the increase in rail coming through our City and suburbs-double decker freight trains not only inconveniencing local residents mentally (from increased noise), but the unavoidable damage to homes through repeated vibrations from the trains-an undeniable truth that occurs from heavy rail. Not to mention the traffic chaos at level crossings (during and after the planned construction).

The rail line through Junee onto Narrandera through to Melbourne was a well planned, thought out transport route unfortunately closed decades ago. Good, consultative planning is required with all communities when change is planned. Country communities are and always have been the backbone of our nation and the residents deserve to be heeded.

Any increase in road and foot bridge height would pose much greater traffic hazards (both during and after construction). This from both an environmental, social/emotional and heritage point of view.

The proposed inlaid rail requires a new conversation-an alternative which diverts the line away from the city of Wagga.

Clare Wotherspoon
Elizabeth Bren
URANQUINTY , New South Wales
I have just built a new house that is next to the railway line this project is about. The trains that pass here do make a little noise but we agreed to that when we built here. However we do worry about the future structure of the house as it shakes when trains go by. We had to jump through multiple hoops by council to get our build approved and prove that the noise level was acceptable with the trains. After all that trouble we can not approve louder and more trains going through. We plan to start a family in this house but if the amount of trains this project is suggesting will be going through my town, I most certainly will leave the area. If this proposal goes ahead, it will destroy the communities that it goes through. This small town I live in will suffer and it’s population will definitely decrease. It is not ok to make the decision for us to ruin people’s homes and lives with this project. I strongly object to this project and if it is approved I know I, and many other people will continue to object to ensure this does not go ahead
Name Withheld
Inland Rail
A level crossing on a main arterial road in a city of approximately 70,000 people (and growing) is not safe or efficient.
Add to the current congestion in the Bourke / Docker / Coleman Streets area the complication of longer trains, more frequent trains, increasing development to the south of the city, a major regional hospital with car-park access off the arterial road a short distance from the level crossing , and you have a recipe for extreme congestion and frustrated motorists.
Please consider the impact on the amenity of the many Wagga residents who live in this area.
Name Withheld
TURVEY PARK , New South Wales
I live in Coleman St towards the Bourke st intersection/level crossing. I have grave reservations about the project and how it will impact on traffic flow and noise around my dwelling.
Often the traffic along Coleman st becomes very congested due to school traffic, tradesman and general traffic due to the poor design of the Bourke/Coleman st intersection and it's close proximity to the railway crossing. Bourke St is a major route into the city and will become even busier as the city grows. If the Inland Rail project proceeds and longer trains are required to pass through the crossing, this traffic build up will be even worse making exiting Coleman st onto Bourke st almost impossible. This is also true for the Docker/Chaston st intersection which is already problematic.
The only way that I can see this being improved is if Coleman st is made a cul de sac or an overpass being made over the rail crossing. I am also very concerned about how the increasing size, number of trains and subsequent build up of traffic will restrict access to Wagga Base Hospital for emergency vehicles and the general public.
I am also concerned about the increase in noise that the project will create. At times already, trains cause my windows and doors to shake. An increase in the frequency and size of trains will exacerbate this.


Project Details

Application Number
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure
Development Type
Rail transport facilities
Local Government Areas
Albury City, Wagga Wagga City, Junee Shire, Lockhart Shire, Greater Hume Shire

Contact Planner

Max Obiakor