The 'UIC' is the Union International de Chemins de Fers, or International Union of Railways. They have classified a set of standardised gauges based largely on European loading gauges, which they use letters to classify. The smallest is GA, then you have GB, GB+ and GC. It is not the same as the Great Central Railway, or it's preservation successors.
I think in most cities that tunnelling would be the way to access the centre, although I would guess at systems more like Thameslink or the model in Warsaw, where trains run through cities, and are turned around at parkway stations on the edges of town.
A bit late, but the 'G' stands for gabarit, the French word meaning, in the railway context, 'structure gauge'.
Platforms are your issue here. The distance from a GB-sized train to a standard European platform is too large to expect anybody to step normally, so you would need to fit gap fillers to either trains or platforms (or both) and then have a system that was capable of managing the deployment of said gap fillers as required. Very expensive, considering lots of wayside stations would never justify rebuilding the platforms to such a level.
Considering some rolling stock has gap fillers for level boarding it could be done on the train side. As it would be a rolling program as well any new tenders would be for with level boarding of this nature to allow the change in platforms to take place.
Not a fan of cutting back the canopies until the stock is big enough to fill the space. Nobody wants to get soaked leaping over a big gap.
I guess another question is how do towns and cities develop without railways? I'm guessing maybe many prominent places don't develop at all.
I was thinking about raising the platform canopies not moving them backwards really so trains and wires fit under them rather than them not being there. As there's no steam anymore there is less of a ventilation issues so it's only diesels you have to worry about but the open nature of everywhere else should suffice for ventilation
This I can get on board with
A shame nobody told whoever planned the 1988 upgrade of Huddersfield station, which involved platform 1 being built out to meet what had been a goods line. As a result the foot or so width of the platform nearest the train is not covered by the overall roof.
Combining the two London to Scotland HS2 trains with two of the Manchester trains would save a little bit of capacity at Euston I guess?In true crayonista fashion and to finally bury the Castlefield corridor discussion at the same time
Replan HS2 Crewe - Manchester for 300 kph throughout and run the HSL with an underground station at Piccadilly through to Preston, so that it can be used by London - Scotland (nonstop through MAN, instead of the Golborne link) and Birmingham- Scotland (stopping at MAN). Scrap the NPR portion via MIA and build a new more direct line MAN - LIV, connected to the tunnel described above (LIV - MAN much more important than the airport, and HS trains LIV - MAN - MIA still possible with an attractive journey time).
Cambridge-Ely is already wired, unless the 365s to King's Lynn were doing some rather extreme coasting.
Why would Norwich to Ely be unlikely? Cambridge to Norwich is an important route in a fast growing area, based on new technology. Indeed Ely to Norwich is arguably as important as Ely to King's Lynn.
The obvious question is where the heck will arrivals go??? You only mention departures....
Preston - Carlisle via Carnforth has been wired since 1974. Presumably we're talking about via Barrow?
Strictly speaking Preston-Carlisle via Carnforth is the route via Barrow as there's no platforms on the WCML today.
Because the benefit is minimal. Ely to Norwich gives no wider strategic benefit because of the limited number of through services, while Norwich already has an electrified link to London and although it is fast growing Norwich is still a relatively small city with a relatively small economic base, and Cambridge is also a relatively small city although it does have a much bigger economic base.