It's a bit different because you have much bigger tunnels, longer platforms and fewer and further between stations. And less frequent trains (RER C in Paris is particularly bad for that).
-
-
Replying to @uncriticalsimon
Differences in tunnel dimensions or platform length can easily exist *within* a subway network (Tokyo's has 3 different gauges and at least 3 different power sources!). Wider station spacing is the same from rider's perspective as skip-stop services on more dense lines...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
But isn't the Japanese concept that the *same* lines are both subway and commuter rail? Rather than having short-haul subways and long-haul commuter trains in separate tunnels?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @uncriticalsimon
Japan has short-haul subway lines with no commuter rail through service, as well as short-haul subway lines with through service onto commuter rail, as well as commuter rail without subway through service.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
The through service is the difference. Actually I was being slightly unfair to London: apart from the Met, the Bakerloo does run on the Watford DC line and the District on the line to Richmond. But these aren't like the Japanese ones.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @uncriticalsimon
But it's a difference that only came about by historical accident, and even then only partially (as you've described, there *are* through services in London, just very little integration between suburban and urban lines).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Paris is more clearly segregated. But you usually don't want 300 metre commuter trains on the same tracks as 130 metre subway trains
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @uncriticalsimon
Correction: you *can't* have them on the same platform. If they were of a compatible length, why wouldn't you want them to? Moreover, why should they be of such radically different lengths in the first place?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Mainly the cost of building, and especially extending, underground stations. And the time taken to clear stations and points.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @uncriticalsimon
I'm not sure you read my tweet: *if they were of compatible length,* why wouldn't you want them to use the same tracks? And, following on that, what advantage is conferred to the riders by having them of such different lengths in the first place?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Bear in mind that if you want to double capacity on a line, you can either double the size of the trains, or double the frequency: the latter option has the extra benefit of shortening wait times for riders and increasing the number of possible trips in a day.
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.