Post by Ben on May 6, 2016 18:20:10 GMT
"* In exactly the same way that in Scotland the choice was between no railway or a single track one with the minimum of double track necessary for a 30minute service. Anything other than the later decimated the BCR such that the end result would have been nothing at all."
I understand that the Borders railway, like nearly all railway reopenings, is doing far better than expected. Given therefore, that the assumed benefits have turned out to be far higher, in turn changing the BCR, it is most annoying that better passing loops were not built, as they could well have been afforded if the economic pundits weren't so doubting. I suspect something similar with CRL, but by the time its built any extra economic activity generated is unavailable for further enhancements to the scheme.
Just quickly to get back to the Mets stabling requirements though, what the comments so far seem to indicate is that the Jubilee takes up a bit more space at Neasden, forcing some Mets to stable elsewhere? Watford an already hold 5 though, so presumably nothing is changing there?
I understand that the Borders railway, like nearly all railway reopenings, is doing far better than expected. Given therefore, that the assumed benefits have turned out to be far higher, in turn changing the BCR, it is most annoying that better passing loops were not built, as they could well have been afforded if the economic pundits weren't so doubting. I suspect something similar with CRL, but by the time its built any extra economic activity generated is unavailable for further enhancements to the scheme.
Just quickly to get back to the Mets stabling requirements though, what the comments so far seem to indicate is that the Jubilee takes up a bit more space at Neasden, forcing some Mets to stable elsewhere? Watford an already hold 5 though, so presumably nothing is changing there?
