You get more seats per metre of train length, and a less draughty carriage, with fewer doors.
You would certainly want subway-like *frequencies* to go to Providence, though, and what about the vast majority of commuter rail stops which are much closer to Boston than that?
-
-
Obviously you can't stick *current* commuter trains into the tunnels, which is why I said at the outset that this sort of improvement involves new commuter trains.
-
Depends what you mean by "subway like frequencies". Certainly not 36 an hour!
-
To the best of my knowledge there are no frequencies that high anywhere on the T...even in Tokyo: Odakyu only recently moved up to 36 an hour (from 24) and that's on a 4-track line! But the current frequency is around 1 or 2 an hour, and there's a lot of room between 1 and 36
-
The Victoria line is now 36 (at peak), I believe. With two tracks.
-
The busiest subway line in Tokyo (Marunouchi Line) peaks at 33 trains per hour iirc. I don't know of any that go higher than that, but I may be forgetting something. Moscow Metro tops out at 40 per hour (90 second headways)
-
Admittedly these are short (133 metres) and small trains. Not full size as in Tokyo.
-
Marunouchi Line is also kind of short by Tokyo standards if memory serves--platforms aren't as long as on other routes
-
Tube trains always have been short. And the Vic was built during a 1960s economy drive.
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.