This is a strategic move: it makes it easier to move weapons within Europe and makes it much harder for Russia should they invade.
Ideally you would want to do this all over Europe.
replies(5):
Ideally you would want to do this all over Europe.
I think bridge heights are the bigger problem here
At almost every election before this version of Labour got in, the Tories would promise all sorts of rail projects then immediately cancel them after the election.
One project was a goods "spine" (all projects were "spines" at this point), that invovled improving the loading guage from Southampton upwards.
For routes where this happened I don't see why we couldn't upgrade the stations to a bigger loading guage and have double decker trains.
I've noticed all the bridges we get on stations these days are much higher.
I don't know if detailed guage maps exist - it would be interesting to know how many bridges and tunnels stand in the way of reguaging on various routes.
The costs would be high and the benefits negligible. Where more capacity is required, it's typically easier to lengthen existing trains, or run more trains, than to go adapting stations and building new unique double-decker trains that are only going to be compatible with a specific line.
And, as mentioned elsewhere, double-deckers have a big disadvantage in lengthening dwell times (due to less doors per passenger), which could result in slower services.