|
|
| Re: PHOTOS: CALTRAN CALTRAIN IV (1145520) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: PHOTOS: CALTRAN CALTRAIN IV |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Tue Mar 20 08:56:36 2012, in response to Re: PHOTOS: CALTRAN CALTRAIN IV, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Mar 19 18:31:02 2012. Rapid transitizing commuter rail lines ultimately is less flexible and more costly than keeping with traditional commuter rail principles. SEPTA Regional Rail is a good example where they can run Rapid Transit levels of service when it is demanded, but they can still get away with commuter rail level infrastructure.When you rapid transitize a system it raises the bar on what you can get away with. For example instead of being able to get away with a small platform serving one or two cars at a lightly used station you must built full length (and possibly high level) platforms at all new stations on the system. Even at 110mph traditional rail can get away with some traditionally protected grade crossings while rapid transit must often eliminate most of these crossings. POP is great, but it requires an infrastructure to support TVM's at all stations and when headways are long it can fuck people rushing to catch their train as they are no longer able to buy their ticket on board. Traditional rail is better able to recover from equipment failures while rapid transit's playbook consists of discharging and calling a bus. You can always achieve rapid transit levels of service using rail practices at a far lower cost. So where you don't need to use a transit type model (ie where you won't have extensive urban operations) go with a railroad model. |
|
|
|