The new tunnel, which opened on November 2, reduces the line distance by 19.85 metres (65.12 feet)

Spending an undoubtedly huge sum of money to build a tunnel that only shortens the route by less than twenty metres seems a tad profligate to me.

Am 06.01.2021 um 14:59 schrieb Alan McMillan:

Spending an undoubtedly huge sum of money to build a tunnel that only
shortens the route by less than twenty metres seems a tad profligate
to me.

Perhaps, before ranting about tunnel meters, maybe you should have asked, WHY the new tunnel was built at all. Now, I tell you, the reason was only to widen the profile. It would have been built, even it would have /added/ 18 m to the distance between Hamburg and Reggio di Calabria.

Before a decision was taken, a study was made, if it would be better to enlarge the existing bore or to build a new one. Investment would have been similar but the restriction during the building time weighed out any difference. This was, BTW, similar with the Albula tunnel.

Markus, Gürbetal

Spending an undoubtedly huge sum of money to build a tunnel that only shortens the route by less than twenty metres seems a tad profligate to me.

The main rationale was to open the tunnel and thus the route to trains carrying truck trailers that are the standard 4 metres high at the corners.

George




--
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com

I don't think the objective was ever to shorten the distance, but to make the route usable by freight trains with greater clearances.

As a side effect the old tunnel will serve as a service and emergency access and evacuation tunnel, so increasing safety.