This characteristically elegant summary raises three things which, as an interested layman I would like to hear more of:
1.
Cost attribution: I fully accept that if this were done for the sake of electrification it would kill it dead, but if demolition and rebuilding needs doing anyway, would it be appropriate to make put those horrific costs "against" electrification? Could this be turned on its head to something like "We've got to rebuild the bridge, with all the pain that entails, why don't we use the opportunity to wire under it while we're at it?"
2. "
Electrification costs": it seems to me that three things happen when a section of line is electrified:
- it is electrified
- the route is improved (tracks renewed, curves eased, speeds raised and the like)
- signalling is modernised
is it appropriate to include all of 2 and 3 under electrification, shouldn't some or much of them happen anyway?
3.
Intermittent electrification (or intermittent wiring): Raising bridges and lowering tracks costs a fortune, causes a lot of disruption and takes ages. With bi-modes now built and planned need we do so many engineering alterations?
Informed responses welcome.