Search results

Every journey starts with a single step. Every network has to start (and end) somewhere. The journey that started with two steel rails will not go on forever.

It's just another anomaly of our fractured railway administration. It's not logical, but it probably doesn't really make much difference to the running of these stations. Placing all stations in Network Rail's control would be a solution, but it's not a matter of any urgency.

Who would expect a monorail/maglev system to be compatible? Not even politicians.

It's clearly unrealistic to assume that every railway in the world would suddenly convert to new technology, there are already plenty of non-compatible systems working perfectly well around the world. 4'8".5 isn't the only gauge. Monorail/maglev have their place alongside these systems, not...

I am, personally. a new technologist, I live for the best our industry can provide. So, I cannot believe the future entirely rests between two steel rails.

I'm old enough to remember these three predictions (All from well-informed sources.) 1. A computer will never be able to play chess. 2. Man will never walk on the moon. 3. There will never be a need for home computers. Care to add to these?

We presently rely on two steel rails 4'8" apart (other gauges are available). Will we continue to do so forever? Can anyone see the time when our 19th century technology is deemed no longer fit for purpose? There's no immediate prospect of a monorail or maglev line being built, but one day.........

Because it's 'standard'. Think out of the box. Those rails aren't there to hold us in. And why should they be rails?

And the last of the broad gauge went in the 1890s. Maybe it's about time we tried something else?

Good point, but it doesn't change the fact that we have made non-compatible changes to our railways before. Perhaps it's time to make the next BIG step.

But someone started it. Just the same as someone started to electrify the railways. And that didn't work with anything else.

The first railways were exactly that. But at least someone had the balls to build them.

The question isn't how far apart the rails should be, but why are we still using them? Dare I whisper "Monorail"?

The borderline obsessives who use this forum are quick to point out Mr Portillo's startling ability to depart on one train and arrive on another, but 99% of telly viewers can't tell the difference between a Pendolino and Mallard, so are unaffected by these apparently glaring errors. The reason...

It won't be impossible to add stations or loops to HS2 at a later date, but with so much of it being buried it will be difficult and expensive over much of the route. Basically, if it isn't in the plan during construction it's unlikely to happen.

I hesitate to state the number of preserved steam locos in this country, estimates vary, but suffice it to say, there's no shortage of potential motive power. Obviously only a small proportion of this is in steam at any one time. Over and above preserved engines we now have the Tornado...

Anything's possible, but as much of HS2 will be in deep cuttings and tunnels, the opportunities to add any unplanned bits will be limited.

Longer turnout curves, swingnose points, moving block signalling and improved train braking will all make it easier to fit stopping train paths in between high speed services, but it isn't an efficient use of HS2. Extended turnout curves will, in any case, be impractical at many stations and...

Unfortunately, there is some evidence that existing conurbations are the main beneficiaries of high speed railways. I suspect that there's not much that can be done to change that. Adding too many unnecessary stops to HS2 (and I include Heathrow amongst these) will reduce the line's capacity as...

Far be it from me to accuse a British Government of trying to do things on the cheap! None of us can be sure how soon HS2 will start to fill up with traffic, my argument is that once slower services have taken up paths it will be difficult to get rid of them in favour of high speed trains that...