Many thanks for your prompt (almost to a fault) reply to my intetest expressed in the disused EK-Hamilton rail route. However, I'm wondering can anyone 'shed light' on my other two areas of interest. (A) I observe mention of the necessity to equip present Forth Bridge traffic with (a) Battery/Hybrid Propulsion or (b) a 750v 'third-rail'. Bridge Headroom 'strikes' me as being adequate for the errection of catenary/OHLE-wires. (B) Grangemouth's apparent closeness to Culross (koorus) has surprised me of how little (if any) mention has ever been made of constructing a rail-bridge across the River Forth. Additionally, the permanent decommissioning of Kincardine Bridge's opening feature supports a perception of mine. That is that navigation by cumbersome craft (eg shipping) any further upstream of Grangemouth is no longer required. Perhaps the manoeuvring/U-turning of Container Craft in the immediate vicinity may restrict the construction/approval of non-opening bridges. Incidentally, do the "Con' & Use Regs" allow Opening Rail Bridges? The slower approaching speed/s of signal-bound trains MIGHT tolerate minimally misaligned rail-joints lest abrupt derailments be feasible. (D) However slow the progress of UK's Electrification Program ('38%?), I am personally not worried that a larger grade of Shipping Container (W12/9'6") may never be admitted to our lines. Yes, I fully understand and accept that even Electric Route Traffic (inc' locos) must be compatible with the bridges, tunnels & structures on Diesel Only Routes. That is to provide for emergency diversions, supposing even that Diesel or Battery-Powered locos are 'drafred in' to haul the electric stock. Even within the restritive Structure/Loading Guage overall, semi-DoubleDeck passenger-stock could feasibly be incorporated (eg upper saloon a central 3-abreast with sunken side-aisles above lower saloon's seated areas & eased by a sloped/tapered, upholstered ceiling at the approaches). Additional station Dwell-Times could be offset by 'pushing' each sides pair of doors to each end thus accommodating a central third-door ('A 50% door-provision increase v only a 30% seating capacity premium? What's wrong with that? Yes, I've been explained by a separate source that (almost like a light road-vehiclw) the average railcar's construction is chassis-less/monocoque or unitary thus certain interventions CAN compromise structural rigidity. All that said, I'm confident of thete existing on electrified lines a headroom that is surplus to that of 'a safe Arcing Distance'. Therefore, Fully Bi-Level configurations utilused by overseas operators (eg Dopelstok Wagen etc) needn't never come to 'our shores' one day. A renewed appreciation of a few moments if your time!
