Merle Haggard
Established Member
Freightliner would benefit - you could have two 40ft containers 9ft 6 inches high on the same wagon.
For electrified lines that would need very tall pantographs ...
Freightliner would benefit - you could have two 40ft containers 9ft 6 inches high on the same wagon.
For electrified lines that would need very tall pantographs ...
Indeed, and it was the combination of cost and the fact 3rd rail was the preferred approach of the LSWR, whose top brass made in the bulk of early SR management, which did for the overhead. Short-term expediency was still a thing 100+ years ago too!If the bridges weren't tall enough for catenary then it may still have been installed in South London. Equally we came very close to Overhead electrification in the south anyway with the LBSCR.
For me the biggest difference would probably have been on the freight side - more generous gauge would have meant less work needed to clear for containers and bigger wagons making services potentially more profitable. Also there's a version of this future where the Channel Tunnel gets built earlier and we have commuter services from northern France to London when Britain was more friendly to ideas of European integration.
India has been double stacking for a while on certain lines with electric haulage and very tall pantographs:For electrified lines that would need very tall pantographs ...
A roomier driving cab?What benefits do 374s have over 373s related to the former's larger size? The former takes advantage of HS1 being of continental loading gauge with a larger body size than 373s, which started life navigating the classic network.
Thank God that the US loading gauge constrains double stack to 2 x 9' 6" boxes or the Yanks would have introduced 10ft boxes which would have become an international norm and really strained the UK loading gauge.Freightliner would benefit - you could have two 40ft containers 9ft 6 inches high on the same wagon.