Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Ballast from the past

Letters

I was interested in your debate on track bed technology (NCE 26 April). Neither of the contributors mentioned the main problem in relation to rigid versus flexible track bed design, which is the infrastructure support under the track.

In the UK much of the infrastructure supporting the track was designed with a moderate safety factor by the Victorians to save significant costs on landtake and embankment structures. In consequence, many tracks are regularly re-ballasted to correct long term continuous settlements and ground movements.

Therefore, rigid track would require improvements to the infrastructure support at significant cost possibly with extra landtake to reduce embankment movements and increase factors of safety.

Richard Williams, chief executive, Owen Williams Group RichardWilliams@Owen williams. co. uk

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.