And here's your reference:I say again, this claim that catenary height can't change is on the level of claiming catenary doesn't work in winter.
https://rdso.indianrailways.gov.in/works/uploads/File/Railway _Gazette_Double_Stack Container(1).pdfA test programme has confirmed the feasibility of operating electrically hauled double-stack container trains, leading to Indian Railways’ decision to wire the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor at 25 kV 50 Hz.
What do you think "Dedicated Freight Corridor" might mean?
Here's a pic from that reference:
For some odd reason, using a panto that tall for rapid passenger use let alone high speed use aggravates the laws of physics. They will fail, spectacularly, and if not pushed to the failure point, they add a huge amount of drag and stress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_line#HeightThe wiring in most countries is too low to allow double stack container trains. The Channel Tunnel has an extended height overhead line to accommodate double-height car and truck transporters. India is proposing a network of freight-only lines that would be electrified with extra height wiring and pantographs.
Metrolinx has made clear the height it intends to use for catenary if and when it ever happens. And it's the height considered by many as a standard.in the developed world.(Approx 5.3m) CN and CP have declared that they don't wish for that, or *ANY* catenary on their main lines. That is their right under our law. On Metrolinx tracks, the conditions of sales apply from the former railway, and that may or may not dictate the ability to run double stack trains.
Your insanity or not besides, here's California's take on it:This strange Canadian obsession with declaring that everything must be done the way it was 80 some years ago "because that's the way it is" really drives me insane.
and the EU's and Int'l directive:
Their standards are right up to date, not "80 years ago" and they're a hell of a lot more advanced in terms of electrified passenger transit than we are.