That last one is a big ask. Hard to fit in 36 tph on a commuter rail line with lots of flat junctions, freight, possibly some level crossings etc. Or if you don't have enough doors on your trains
...and low frequency is just a deficiency--nobody benefits from that. Differences between commuter rail and subways are generally arbitrary as they are both trying to accomplish the same goal: moving large numbers of people in constrained spaces. Same goal = convergent evolution
-
-
I think there's a continuum though. The further I'm going, the more I want a seat, a toilet, a table, a power socket, a drinks trolley etc.
-
Sure--and why shouldn't a train with all those features (assuming compatible infrastructure!) run through a subway tunnel?pic.twitter.com/a6nFTnOUwX
-
In theory, nothing. In practice they're usually too different to run without an unacceptable capacity loss.
-
Don't tell Tokyo Metro, they'll hate to hear they've caused unacceptable capacity loss!
-
Attempting to run typical 160 km/h, low acceleration, two-sets-of-doors UK commuter MUs in the core of the London Underground *would* cause unacceptable capacity loss! (Even if you do it on the subsurface lines where they'd fit.)
-
And why do they need to be limited to two sets of doors? Or have low acceleration? Even if you DON'T interoperate with the Tube, what advantages do these design choices have for passengers?
-
More space for seats and a less jolty ride. Plus higher speed is more important than high acceleration on longer distance trains
-
Train suspension (re: jolting) has little relation to the number or doors or the rate of acceleration--as for seats, you get better results with high frequency than with fewer doors. High acceleration is important at any distance, especially if you want high overall speed!
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
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.