On Oct 28, 11:31*am, EE507 wrote:

2. Having to move signals as well as extend platforms to accommodate
trains of longer than 240 m on many routes.


IMHO 300 m should have been adopted as a default at least from WCML
PUG if not before, and should be used for all upgrades and new routes.

300 = 15x20 with 13x23 = 299 fits well with the basics exisitng 20/23
m car body lengths, 11x26 does waste a bit of space but that does
leave 10x26 with 2x20 for a power car at each end if one must think
that way.

That still leaves a major headache at BNS though.


3. A lack of terminal capacity.


Indeed, although of course thats negated where dead ends are converted
to or relieved by through routes.

SPI has been a waste in this respect. Cue list of whngers to comment
that would make the country end of the MML platforms ever further away
from Euston Road.

6. Dealing with high platforms when converting heavy rail into tram
systems. Manchester is now stuck with them.

Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but that particular scheme does
seem to be an example of not quite how it should have been done.

--
Nick