Route Test fleet (Single Decks upgradeable v2)

I say this thinking about how routes 42 170 and 201 all had MECs tested by Go-Ahead as Red Arrow routes 507 and 521 were converting to electric Enviro200 EVs.
The 42 passed. The 170 passed. The 201 failed (due to Roupell Road), 646/648 failed for somewhere.

Stagecoach tried with 314 using Citaros freed from 227, the test failed by Elmstead Woods as the roads curve narrowly. Instead the Citaros got sold to Cyprus where a rival operator arsoned them. Bad end to great machines.

(Stagecoach should've tried with P4 too)

Another failed attempt includes Metroline with double deck TAs and route 251. Failed due to Totteridge area.

Since the previous 70-capacity 201 test failure, Lambeth council installed Low Traffic Neighbourhood, and didn't remove it like some other boroughs wisely did, in spite of increased traffic on main roads which hasn't dissipated to thin air as some would've liked. This made me think, following 201's tender announcement keeping it's YY64-reg Enviro200s I adore.

The 201 can realistically use 12m buses now.

Why?

Only buses are allowed to turn into Roupell Road [from A205]

I am under the belief a sizeable amount of single deck routes that use 10.8m vehicles can use 12m sized vehicles. The 108 has proved it, the 360 has proved it, the 444 has proved it. The 203 and H37 were 10.8m single deck routes until 2011-12.

The purpose of this is manyfold

- Reduce the amount of times TfL and operators need to verify a route test, making this one-party

- Insure the highest size vehicle can be used on buses, ensuring maximum capacity achieved

- Eliminate discrepancies

Just recently, new routes SL1 and SL2 were tested using an LT.

Just recently, the 289 was awarded as a double deck route (currently single deck), just like happened to 80 - making Sutton (A) almost fully electric, Thornton Heath (TH) will also be fully electric.

Realising it deeper as I publish this post
Electric range is more important but can't quantify it myself
Speadsheet: Single Decks upgradable (updated for 2023!)

M25 median railway

Why would one build a railway in the middle of a motorway? It's cheaper!

Why would you avoid grade-separating railways, either through tunnelling ground or having them elevated? In short: cost (acquiring land and compensating owners, etc)

Where the Elizabeth Line's construction costs surpassed $25 billion tunnelling through central London, there is only lane widening to consider for motorways (unless already had a convenient median).

A little while ago in Canada Montreal's newest metro on the block: REM automated light rail system along the freeway.

I increased my budget with my own animated GIF

It's not uncommon in America too, usually in cases the freeway came after the railway. 

Or see Roosevelt Boulevard, it already a median built into it in preparation for a subway that is 20-years in bickering over finances.

   If it's not obvious, America had the most railway track in any country in the 19th-20th centuries, well, I didn't try as it's not the main topic but alas, some things confined to the past.

So you have Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia but to name a few that have this... quirk of the transport world.

My budget ran out
Yes that is a bus station you see above the Joondalup line station

In Berlin the autobahn (highway in English) was built 50 years after the Ringbahn (S-bahn/U-bahn trains that form a ring in the city).

Osaka in Japan also has some section of this description, albeit 4-lane for cars rather than the monstrosities you see in America.

Perth also has a 10-lane freeway with a bus lane on the outsides, and a railway in the middle. They're gonna extend the line, costing only $441 million AUD projected as of writing.

There's an entire Wikipedia sub-page for this.

The consensus is highway median railways like these are bad, after all in those stations on the motorway - you're blasted with the sound of tyre friction that surpass 90 dB (think of being in a concert level of loudness), whilst every waking second feels longer than it actually is, as your perception is slightly warped by how uncomfortable it is to be there, even with some level of sound proofing.

Then, catchment.

Where are you placing stations to appeal to people that won't drive their car? A decent amount of catchment area is taken by the motorway itself. Therefore the areas the stations are in should be a destination despite these shortcomings, to be considered usable.

So I had a thought, is this doable with our M25?

Highway median railways, what could possibly go wrong!