Mark Goodge wrote on 13 Nov 2017 at 17:01 ...
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:57:20 +0000, "Richard J."
wrote:

Mark Goodge wrote on 13 Nov 2017 at 16:45 ...
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:28:49 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Certes wrote:
On 13/11/17 10:29, Recliner wrote:
I'm surprised our hyperactive Cambridge and Ely correspondents haven't
posted this story:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/plan-for-underground-line-to-run-under-cambridge-centre-s29mmk858?shareToken=0fdf69714488066c31bc93f5152e2 fd0

That's going to make Edinburgh Council look like a paragon of
financial prudence. Especially as it'll be "Britain’s first new
underground railway in decades", so there are no workers available with
recent experience of tunnelling in, say, London.

Huh? Crossrail, HS2 and the Northern line extension all have significant
London tunnels. By the time this scheme gets underway, Crossrail 2 might
also be underway or even completed, as might the Bakerloo extension.

By "new" they mean a new city, as the article goes on to make clear
when you read it in full. London already has several underground
railways.

Yes, the article is not totally ignorant about other recent underground
railways in Britain. But the opening statement (perhaps added by a sub-editor?)
"Britain’s first new underground railway in decades..." is just plain wrong.

It's perfectly correct if you assume that "railway" means a network,
not just a line. The London Underground is "a railway" in the same
sense that, say, the LNER was a railway.

In what sense is the CamTram a proper railway whereas the Elizabeth Line isn't? They are both networks of several branches with a common underground core. If you asked people which one wasn't a new railway, I think you'd find that most people would choose CamTram on the grounds that it's only a tramway.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)