|
Top-level
 @forestpines @cstross @http @julf @marcas @tml @SteveJonesnono1 Also if you run trains more frequently. Then they won't be as packed. And if the train your on sucks. You can get off at the next station. Wait a few minutes and get on the next one. This is also the flexibility of not having to book tickets on trains. You can move about. 5 comments
Going with Edinburgh to London as an example: there's plenty of capacity to run more trains between Edinburgh and Newcastle...except that Newcastle Central Station itself is pretty close to capacity Further south the main line basically gets more and more traffic the further south you go, until it's also at full capacity south of Hitchin (where the Cambridge & King's Lynn trains join the main line) @forestpines @cstross @http @julf @marcas @tml @SteveJonesnono1 excellent! A job creation scheme to build more tracks! Why do you threaten us with a good time ? @cstross @forestpines @http @julf @marcas @tml @SteveJonesnono1 With modern signalling systems, you can run a train about every 3 minutes or so. Assuming you already have a double track line. Bringing the signals into the 21st century is a damn good start. I'm not (yet) calling for every 90 seconds for a train. Every 15 mins is my minimum start point. @cstross @quixoticgeek @forestpines @http @julf @marcas @SteveJonesnono1 But try telling that to the "we don't need new high-speed lines for the elite, we just need more reliable trains" gang. |
Gregory's Server
@quixoticgeek @forestpines @http @julf @marcas @tml @SteveJonesnono1 Bear in mind that tracks have a hard capacity limit—more than one train can't run within the same signal block (it's a safety thing) so they need to be spaced apart. Fast trains also take further to stop, so you can have fewer of them per unit track length. So "run trains more frequently" actually implies "build more tracks". And 5% of your track network needs replacing every year. So this drives up fixed costs.