...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
-
-
Replying to @380kmh
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @uncriticalsimon
Sure--and why shouldn't a train with all those features (assuming compatible infrastructure!) run through a subway tunnel?pic.twitter.com/a6nFTnOUwX
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
In theory, nothing. In practice they're usually too different to run without an unacceptable capacity loss.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @uncriticalsimon
Don't tell Tokyo Metro, they'll hate to hear they've caused unacceptable capacity loss!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
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.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @uncriticalsimon
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
More space for seats and a less jolty ride. Plus higher speed is more important than high acceleration on longer distance trains
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @uncriticalsimon
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!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
You get more seats per metre of train length, and a less draughty carriage, with fewer doors.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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
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.