London Banter - View Single Post

[email protected] · April 24th 17, 08:52 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

*Subject:* Woking to Heathrow
*From:* Roland Perry
*Date:* Mon, 24 Apr 2017 20:29:28 +0100

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).

The total Hardengreen structure is longer than that. More like 100m and
looks longer than the Ouse viaduct. It's Bowshank Tunnel, by the way.

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?

The bus structure is quite a bit wider I suspect and I doubt that the 220m
is all viaduct.

--
Colin Rosenstiel