icn

They do this literally all the time in Switzerland. Works fine. Needs money and planning - and I think with that we've already uncovered the problem. To be fair, the other solution is to tunnel the railway line when there are issues - again, money is needed. Not every single crossing gets replaced, some get closed and/or replaced with self-powered-transport-only underbridge, but the new crossings have higher capacity anyway so you don't need as many of them.

They're still trying to keep up the tradition, although it's a tad simpler nowadays - Re 460 dragging a Class 755 with barrier vehicles, for test purposes: https://eisenbahn-amateur.ch/2018/08/31/lauftechnikmessfahrten-mit-einem-zweikraft-flirt-von-stadler-fuer-abellio-east-anglia/ And if you want to mix your eras and couldn't be bothered with barrier vehicles, you can deliver your 745s with an Re 620: https://www.bahnbilder.de/bild/schweiz~e-loks~re-66-sbb-re-620/1152097/die-re-620-033-1-schleppt-einen.html

One wonders if that will change when they upgrade to ETCS which offers a reversing mode which was introduced precisely for tunnel usage. Then again perhaps not, as reversing mode isn't much use if they need to split the train.

Regarding the first one: perhaps, but anti-slip technology has moved on in the meantime which is how you see plenty of Bo-Bos on previously Co-Co jobs, such as BR 151 to BR 189 in Germany or Bo-Bos over the Gotthard. See also the XLoad option for the Vectron: https://press.siemens.com/global/en/pressrelease/sudleasing-orders-20-vectron-locomotives-xload-behalf-sbb-cargo-international . This doesn't seem like a huge issue. The second part is going the be the more interesting one: Eurotunnel already ran tests with the Vectron back in 2012, the idea being (so they pretty much said) to evaluate commodity locomotives through the tunnel. According to this document, TSIs apply since 2012 allowing for the use of standardised locos: https://www.getlinkgroup.com/content/uploads/2023/08/ra2012-uk-eurotunnel-group.pdf . The question is whether this is or will also be acceptable for passenger traffic. The rules can be change in any case, the question is what the updated rules would be. Of course you could just double-head, i.e. have 4 locos per train. It could possibly still end up being cheaper than developing new custom locomotives which rarely happens nowadays.

Not quite the main topic - but when these need replacement I expect it'll just be some Vectrons or Traxx's with at most a few tweaks. Vectron's are already built at 6.4MW (vs 5.6 or mostly 7MW for the existing locos) and have been tested in the tunnel, they're not far off what's needed. Only question is how many tweaks will be needed to satisfy whatever regulations apply at the time.

To play Devil's advocate: Germany has recently built or is still building a fair few 250km/h routes, for example:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendlingen–Ulm_high-speed_railway . Then again, German railways aren't renowned as the paragon of excellence. Switzerland also doesn't bother but then they're not building true high-speed lines right now but rather piecemeal tunnels which happen to be high-speed(ish) capable, and they don't really need high speed for what their network is used for.

I wonder if there's more to it than meets the eye. How was the specification written in the first place? 1 door per side is totally sensible for Talgo-length carriages, and still works reasonably at SMILE or TGV lengths. Did they assume a given carriage length in the spec, did they spec doors per unit of length, did they assume double-wide doors as is done on a lot of double-deck stock, or something else altogether?

Your post proved my point: almost all of those loco-hauled trains are on their way out. The exceptions are: - PKP who are still buying plenty of locos, but I did exclude Eastern Europe for a reason. - OeBB: which I mentioned with the Railjet, and here it's one of the same locos in front of some older stock that's on its way out. - DB with a Vectron in front of preexisting stock, and they don't appear to be buying more.

Neither is true. Outside of Eastern Europe aren't many major European cities with many diesel trains left, and locos are also increasingly on their way out - and most of those left are push-pull. For the former there are more and more hybrids/bi-modes. Notable new exceptions for the latter include the ICE-L and IC-2 (both are niche usecases inside Germany - and the more recent IC-2's are EMUs - and the ICE-L will have hybrid traction for some routes), Nightjet which is a complete exception, some Railjets (although they're getting EMUs too now), and perhaps a few more. An entire diesel-only station in the middle of a big city is almost unheard of.

Germany also uses steep gradients on some of its high speed routes (e.g. Wendlingen Ulm), but the price seems to be that freight usage (happens during the night) is more restricted - and some people claim that the ICE 4 ended up being more expensive than it should've been just to handle these steeper routes. I don't suppose freight is a big concern for HS2 though given that it's more about freeing up capacity for freight elsewhere.

Or perhaps thanks to it. Trouble is with preventative measures is many think they were useless because they actually achieved what they set out to achieve.

Chickens and eggs: lack of cyclists isn't a surprise if the infrastructure isn't there. Often it's a case of build the infrastructure and they will come - ideally by switching away from cars (which helps reduce the traffic issues). Can't tell if that's the case here though since I don't know the area.

No they don't - it's already factored into the timetable. The difference is that for DST we're effectively winding the clock forward or backwards relative to now, when crossing a time zone boundary you're merely relabelling the same moment in time. To be fair, DST is also just a relabelling, but the trouble is that the same (labelled) moment of time appears to be repeated within the same geographical area or vice versa.

I'm not sure that requiring legislation is as much of an issue as some on this thread make out to be. One house is easily whipped, and the other one has to be careful about which issues it makes a stir about to avoid the eternal risk of being reformed - although I have to admit that this is just my idle speculation (proven by various law changes in the past however). I think your point about taking a long time is the key one: the more work that's needed and the longer it takes, the more likely priorities will change again / elections will change things / etc.

That's why they don't blanket such vehicles, they use appropriate tools to extinguish them. That's first hand information from multiple firemen I know. Your second paragraph is highly misleading. A few garages have done so, it's very much the exception - because it's plain and simply a nonsensical approach. The fact remains: extinguishing battery fires requires different techniques, but most of the criticism is misplaced and in fact misinformed. Here's a balanced take on it: https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/au/news/auto-motor/are-electric-cars-a-major-fire-risk-459605.aspx And that infamous car transporter fire recently? The cause of the fire is unknown, but as of yet there's no evidence that it was due to batteries - apparently all the electric car decks were completely unharmed.