529,600,000 trips were made on commuter rail in the USA in FY15. I'm saying that the number would probably go up if the trains were better.https://twitter.com/roadtoserfdom3/status/895722280377999360 …
-
-
MU trains, with far more driving axles, achieve much faster acceleration, can be built at much lighter weights, & inflict less wear on track
-
All good but, all minor variables compared to the central issue of economic justification. Will people choose it over other methods/alterns?
-
They can't choose it if it doesn't exist, and even today they're choosing the inferior versions where they DO exist (ie, in major cities)
-
So, let's modernize existing rail systems to cut down wasteful costs and bring in more passengers, then privatize it when it's profitable
-
As a train enthusiast, I agree. As an amateur economist I can't. Services become profitable when people want them, not want when profitable.
-
And people want them when they can get more value from them, thus: increase value -> more people want it -> profit
-
Over in Boston, commuter rail trains are often overcrowded: demand is much higher than supply!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
All that does is move the power plant further away from the wheels though and all of the power inefficiencies that go along with elec trans.
-
Distance between power source and wheels is irrelevant, MUs can run on diesel if you're afraid of "power inefficiencies" wrt electricity
-
Second and fourth pics here are diesel multiple units (DMUs)https://twitter.com/380kmh/status/895730924066820096 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Even nuclear trains would still have all of the economic challenges. Like I said, I will applaud it done privately and celebrate a success.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.