Transwatch “Fact Sheet” No. 3 – Widths & Headroom

 

Back to Home Page

 

The sheet (dated January 2005) stated that ‘The source for the railway widths cited above is British Railways’.

Ø       When challenged, to identify the precise source, Mr Withrington first replied that the BTC published it in 1961. Asked to name the document, he replied that he was mistaken; the document specified only the length of railway route. No one has ever measured the frequently varying width of railway route for obvious reasons – cost and irrelevance.

 

He praises the only route study – from Liverpool Street (commissioned by the DoE, which rejected it), whose author says he measured bridge widths & heights and the formation width of 134 miles of railway.

Ø       The study missed many bridges, but showed that half of those listed would require excavation, modification or rebuilding to produce clearances below that specified by the DoE.

Ø       Private property would have to be compulsorily acquired at 13 locations to attain his sub-standard width.

Ø       26 miles of main line double track on embankment & in cuttings with 53 bridges ‘would be abandoned’ diverting ex-rail traffic (commuters, main line passengers & freight) in buses & lorries via a new link road onto the notorious A12. It would reach towns which had rail stations on the main line, via minor roads. Other flows would be diverted to existing roads after conversion.

Ø       Rail traffic would be diverted to existing roads during conversion. Paradoxically, there would be no increased deaths in these reverse transfers.

 

He told the Select Committee on Transport that the ‘minimum width of tunnels may be stated as 24 feet, but never less than 22 feet’.

Ø       There is no official published data. Network Rail state that they do not have data on the minimum width of tunnels, and costs would be incurred to provide it.

 

On his web site under “Community Rail”, he says “Where the formation is single track the width is never less than 13 feet. Widening by 3 feet each side would provide a very good standard of road compared with most of the rural network”. He quotes no source for this claim & Network Claim are unable to say what the minimum width of single lines is. It would not be possible to widen tunnels by 6 feet, and every over- & under-bridge would almost certainly need to be rebuilt.

 

The Conversionist belief in the adequacy of the width of railways to be converted to good fast roads is based on the belief that the whole area between fences has been so thoroughly compacted over 150 years or so by heavy trains that it needs only a few mm more of asphalt than recommended for a domestic driveway to render it fit for the pounding of Juggernauts & PSVs. The reality is that only the central part has been compacted – typically about 16 feet width on a double track railway, about only 8 feet on a single track. An appended diagram depicts this data. He claims that a 24 ft wide railway – even a 13 ft railway with tunnels, is adequate but air brushes out of comparisons 200,000 miles of roads, most of which have comparable – or better - widths to those of converted railways!

 

Another diagram depicts the comparative width & height clearances of a motorway, a 4-track railway and a 2-track railway.

 

 

‘Fact Sheet 3’ is not based on BR data & is worthless