London Banter - View Single Post

Roland Perry · April 24th 17, 07:29 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In message , at 11:47:37
on Mon, 24 Apr 2017, remarked:
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
10:20:10 on Mon, 24 Apr 2017, remarked:
I can't see any other good reason for a perfectly servicable
railway to be ripped up and replaced with an inferior
alternative.

It wasn't serviceable, and all the stations were gone.

No they weren't. Indeed some of the buildings and platforms are
still there.

Stations require more than "a building" that someone is living in.
Apart from Histon, which was in such a poor state a rebuild would be
required anyway, what other platforms existed, and how many would
take the trains you envisage running (I note that CastIron were
proposing DMUs, so might have got away with platforms for only two
carriages).

There was more still there than on the Borders Railway.

Over budget and under spec at £350m.

You could say the same of the busway of course, and probably have. The
Borders Railway is an awful lot longer though.

Maybe didn't have things as difficult as the Ouse viaduct and the
Trumpington cutting to deal with.

They certainly did. A tunnel needed major works and the Hardengreen viaduct
is longer than the Ouse one UIVMM.

The Ouse viaduct is 220m (Guided bus leaflet Jan 2009), and the
Hardengreen one approximately three sprinter carriages (from photos, so
about 75m).

I suspect the Ouse Viaduct would have been cheaper to restore for a
railway.

Why? Because of the greater load imposed by a train compared to a bus?

--
Roland Perry