bogush earlier wrote:
Ah, but don't most roads go slap bang through the very hearts of rural communities?
Whilst most stations are outside of them, meaning that the rail road "bypasses" (to coin a phrase) the heart, if not the whole "urban" area?
And whilst the rural lines might link rural communities, don't they link them to major urban centres, and so actually link major urban centres [ie the local market town as opposed to the rural villages and hamlets on the lines, and as opposed to London and Glasgow], providing nice level routes with wide sweeping gentle bends, between them.
PeterE wrote:
bogush wrote:
PeterE wrote:
Quote:
Bit like the road system the country lacks then. So what's so "low quality" about that?
A single-carriageway road of under 24 feet carriageway width, even less through bridges and tunnels (possibly with alternate single-way working) is a low-quality road.
But even the link to that transwatch site provides the answers to your question:
5. Widths and headroom[i](a) A two-track railway typically offers room for a UK standard 7.3-metre carriageway with one-metre marginal strips but no other verges.
[snip]
*I'm sure there would be loadsa room to drive a car down the inside of a train if you took the seats out.
And I'm sure there's loadsa room to drive a train down a tunnel.
The interior of a train is about the width of the average garage. You wouldn't drive a car very quickly down there - and you couldn't drive a truck at all.
No, as it's kinda short for building up speed.
But you've missed a bit: using your analogy, there must be room to drive double (triple, quadruple - you're the expert) length garages down the track very quickly. So what else could you drive down it "very quickly"?
PeterE wrote:
bogush wrote:
Are you saying that all the tunnels are single track single line working?
If not, then you are left with miles of room to have a lane of traffic in each direction, no junctions, no climbing to do, no pedestrians, no need to stop or overtake.
Stick up a minimum speed limit and you've got a pretty high quality road in my view!
I've never disputed that it is possible to convert the alignment of a 2-track railway into a 2-lane road. However the width of bridges and tunnels is insufficient to meet modern safety standards, and therefore either they would need to be totally reconstructed, or measures such as low speed limits or alternate working would need to be adopted.
But how many roads meet modern safety standards? And those that do they're looking at removing the hard shoulder!
But what is the point of "improving" the M1 and M6 when vast "uncongested" swathes of the country have totally inadequate road infrastructure (but plenty of rail). The only reason the M1 and M6 (and M25) are congested is because there is nowhere else for traffic or industry to go. We have much more rail infrastructure than our competitiors, and much less road infrastructure. Spot the deliberate mistake.
And if we have to "splash out" on rebuilding a few bridges when we should be investing in a doubling, trebling, or even quadrupling of our road infrastucture: what's the problem?
PeterE wrote:
There would also obviously have to be junctions with other roads
So?
PeterE wrote:
and because of differential vehicle speeds the need for overtaking would inevitably arise
I repeat what I said - a 2-lane single carriageway road with at-grade junctions is not a high quality road by modern standards. Also, such roads tend to have a poor accident record, particularly when they have very long straight stretches which tend to encourage ill-judged overtaking manoeuvres. The accident record on the A15 north of Lincoln, which follows the Roman Ermine Street, is very bad indeed.
The thought that turning the railway network into dangerous, sub-standard roads would improve the overall transport situation in this country is frankly laughable.
Why?
You're thinking like someone who knows what they are talking about!
We're not talking about railroads rebuilt as ordinary roads, or even motorways.
We're certainly not talking about winding country roads with grannies, tractors, and clapped out lorries struggling over steep humps.
We're talking about roads built on railway alignments, with railway segregation.
It would be a completely different kind of road to our current "frankly laughable" "system". So you can't compare the two.
And could you tell us how many twin track railroads are actually on twin track formations, and how many are on old multi track ones?
And what is the experience, especially the safety record, of existing road to road conversions.
snip * wrote:
(b) On the approaches to towns and cities there is often room for a dual two or three lane highway.
(c) Where there is overhead electrification headroom would often be adequate for a triple-decker.
The following link provides a list of conversions:
www.pberry.plus.com/ukroads/railtoroad/index.html Transport-watch seeks the cost of these along with data enabling the cost per square meter to be estimated.
A bit of browsing gives us:
The average leveled width of double track rail was 28 feet ( 8.5 metres) although the distance between the stantions carrying electrification is now commonly 10 metres. Single-track railways had an average level width of 18 feet (5.5 metres) because many were constructed in anticipation of a double track. In comparison Trunk and class A roads commonly narrow to 18 feet, which was the standard width for Scottish trunk roads.
Or are you saying that all the "rural" lines are pure single track on single track formation?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
)
I'm pretty certain it would sustain a lot higher level of taxation that it currently attracts, so wedded is the nation to its cars.
Amongst the reams of diatribe posted by Bogush he invited you to visit his site - its your duty. I must warn you that if you disagree with him he'll not ban you, just your computer. Like guns don't kill computers don't post! If you do get there you'll find a lot of pro-gun lobbying which is currently spilling over to the BBC Nottingham discussion group 
