And certainly historically commuter rail in London was far less attractive than the Tube in places where both are options (eg Enfield).
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!
-
You get more seats per metre of train length, and a less draughty carriage, with fewer doors.
-
True enough. Are these worth handicapping the entire line for, though? They seem appropriate as a premium service--making up a certain portion of trains per hour (as with Keikyu's 2100 series) or carriages per train (as with JR East's Green Cars), not for every car of every trainpic.twitter.com/AkXRaqRrUm
End of conversation
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.