Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:54:09 -0000 Doctor Drivel wrote :
Most tram systems are a joke. Electric buses that costs an
absolute fortune.

Melbourne's tram system is progressively being extended. Trams
last a long time compared with modern buses - our A & B class
trams have been running since the mid 1980s - and can carry lots
of people: our newest five section trams can carry 240 people.

Trams are only feasible where roads are wide enough. Most roads
in UK cities are not wide enough.

This sort of thing was touted frequently by lefty press when I
lived near Cambridge - what about trams or overhead railway to
cross the city. Typical pie in the sky b/s that overlooked the
narrow streets and, in the case of overhead railway, what the
residents might think about having trains rumbling past ten feet
from their front bedrooms.

Modern tunnelling is cheap - boring or cut & cover. Say two tunnels
right under Cambridge, that meet in a croass the centre with a big
underground station that maybe linking with the mainline station.

Oh, cut and cover under Cambridge! What a novel idea!

Pay attention! It said, "Modern tunnelling is cheap - boring or cut &
cover."

One boring machine at one end drive right under a town. Cheap enough.

Unlikely.

Boring is considered cheap rather than run over National parks and the
likes. No land purchases or eco court cases. They were considering
running the HS2 under the Pennines in tunnel from Manchester to Leeds

How about doing neither. How about instead usign a fraction of the money
to improve existing lines. Upgrade main lines to 4 tracks as we have
discussed before.

#
My mate when asked what was most in need of investment in Railtrack said
'level crossings and bridges'