Thank you for your reply , my apologies for mixing up what I'd read about the varsity line having four tracks , I am not sure which in my collection the magazine was, but it was following reopening projects , which the time was what I call phase 1 of EWR ( varsity reopening) it was the magazine who said the section that used the side arch had been four track. That I do remember, but it makes more sense that they were sidings , in any case , there was also a photo online and perhaps earlier in this thread somewhere, ( assuming this thread covered that first section, circa 2015/16, ).
I do wonder if they could use the side arches like that , if to attract more frieight or stopping services, , passing loops , long enough for a freight train or IET , could be built on some areas along the full length , maximising the flexibility of the route .
And although not perfectly straight , this line is a far better value than HS2 , it once finished , and we must have faith it will be , even if there is a small delay beyond Bedford , it still gives people access ( and frieight) to the the great Western mainline, Oxford and it's various connections, the midland mainline is another .
If they do go to Cambridge , you can add the east coast mainline and the line io east Anglia, all without needing to go via a London station
I live in Scotland and we are promised by our MSP our Dumfries - Carinryan and Lockerbie branch will return, the bordersine extended to Carlisle via Hawick, and others .
But I'd argue that as much as I'd love to see those , and the Ireland line down here is vastly more important than dualing the road and destruction of sea side villages.
This ' EWR ' project is if national importance, it's way more useful and important and valuable if built in full , than HS2 , for a fraction of cost.
It still is relatively high speed 100mph , perhaps they can re evaluate that limit to allow 125mph running , and maybe more on the straighter sections .
My apologies if this is more speculation than anything else , I'm not totally familiar with the original route but it does have the key advantage that it doesn't touch London stations , so it in theory frees up capacity elsewhere , it when built in full would be a heck of a waste , for just an hourly two to four car class 196 as has been promised by west midlands trains to loan those types to run services ..they did also of course say the 68 mark3 sets would run on it.
Maybe they'd be allowed to run at 110moh .
Anyway sorry to go off topic .
As for keeping the old bridges , I just think it's kinder to the countryside to blend in the line , even if it has been there in one form or another for well over a century.
I'd always prefer to see those original brick build bridges that seem unique to this line and if I recall , the great central railway.
It just seems better to where possible keep our rail heritage , where possible .
One final thing , I recalled as I wrote this , I downloaded plans for the ongoing railway , and I believe it runs parallel to the midland mainline for a fair distance, as the plans show half a dozen or more culdesac streets, where five or more houses on each are being demolished, to make way for the new trackbed , putting homes that had been further from the the track , right next to the new line .
Anyway thank you for your reply , it does make financial sense so intake your point and the clearance for future electrification, however the expense to demolish and replace a structure may not be needed if they do as they did on the GWR to the West and briefly trains would ' coast ' beneath the unwired bridges . Perhaps that would work for EWR.
