Quoted By:
IMO the weight distribution issues could be solved by scaling up both the rails and the axles appropriate.
>Planning called for a ballastless track (much as was developed 30 years later for San Francisco BART and 40 years later for German high-speed lines) which consisted of two parallel pre-stressed concrete "walls" sunk into the ground, joined at the top by a flat transverse slab.
>The rails were fixed on top of the "walls", with an elastic material between rail and concrete. Because it did not have conventional railway sleepers, this track would also have formed an ideal road for maintenance and military purposes.
>The rails would be either 155 pounds per yard (77 kg/m) (Pennsylvania special; 8-inch (200 mm) tall) rails or proposed 190 lb/yd (94 kg/m) (height-width ratio of 1:1) rails.
>The passing loop length would be more than a mile (11⁄2 km).
I could argue that standard gauge rail technology has just about reached its limit.
