@@illiiilli24601 yep, a childrens book can share the folly of commuter rail in a way that most adults can understand like 30 plus years after it was printed.
For people wondering why overhead is becoming popular in subways, it's thanks to a new technique called "rigid catenary". Which works by attaching the contact wire on aluminum extrusion carriers fixated on tunnel walls instead of hanging the contact wire from fixed supports. That way, space requirement of overhead system is reduced dramatically, which in turns makes cross sectional area of tunnels way smaller, almost as small as tunnels for third rail systems. With space issues mostly gone, overhead becomes much better option. You can run higher voltages, live wires and surfaces kept far away from people (especially in maintenance facilities) and pantographs are quiter for passengers and cheaper for operators.
@@PtrkHrnk yes, the only difference between rigid catenary and traditional overhead systems is how the contact wire is supported. Other than that, it's exactly the same, and trains can run on and transition between both systems no problem. Actually, the Marmaray line in Istanbul uses rigid catenary on tunnel section between Ayrılıkçeşme and Kazlıçeşme stations, rest of the line is traditional overhead system. Trains simply run through it.
The simplicity of London Underground is a deception - many deep level lines aren't compatible with each other. Central line has slightly smaller tunnels that require trains with custom wheels and current pickup gear. Bakerloo and Piccadilly lines have very twisted tunnels and require shorter individual train cars. Victoria line has slightly larger tunnels and correspondingly larger trains. And don't get me started on the signalling systems - even the newest systems on Jubilee and Northern lines are incompatible with each other. TfL spent a lot of money to unify subsurface lines' trains - and even then they ended up with 2 different train lengths.
IIRC the Original 1960s Victoria Line trains were standard size but the tunnels were built slightly larger to allow for higher speeds. When the 2009 stock was ordered they opted to reduce the speeds slightly (but massively increase acceleration) and built the trains to fit the larger tunnels to give more passenger space - this does mean the 2009 stock can only leave the line by road as they don't fit through the connection with the Piccadilly at Finsbury Park
When the first London Underground lines were built, they were planned and constructed by different private companies often in competition with each other so compatibity was not foremost in their minds. The legacy of that is still evident today.
@@railotaku Originally thought that by the '60s tunnelling technology had advanced to the point that the Victoria line's tunnels could've been built even bigger, big enough to accommodate sub-surface-sized rolling stock
That's what I learned when it came to SEPTA's Subway lines in Philadelphia. For at least a year, I was bugging myself about why the Market Frankford Line was built to the unique Pennsylvania Trolley Gauge while the Broad Street Line was built to Standard Gauge. Now I know why.
In Philly, PRT had no rivals as it completed the consolidation process among the older horse car and electric traction lines. The trolley gauge came about because those predecessor lines didn't want the mainline RR's butting in, and PRT was of the same mind when it came to the Market st. subway-elevated. (Built entirely with PRT's own money). The original Market St. line was a first generation rapid transit system like the IRT, and the Chicago 'L' , a characteristic of those systems is their smaller rolling stock . By comparison, the city-built Broad Street Line infrastructure was heavily influenced by the BRT/BMT, which featured larger stations, loading gauge, and rolling stock.
Another argument for train standardization is route changes. Throughout the history of the MTA's ownership of the NYC subway, there have been various route changes - particularly with the B division - to accommodate periodic demand fluctuation. Population concentrations and desired destinations do very well change over time, and not considering changes in future demand seems silly. Standardization can allow for trains to operate along multiple different lines at a time, where needed.
My local LRT network is operationally split into two parts, one using high floor vehicles and one using 70% Low floor vehicles. The low floor vehicles can naturally only be used on low platform height lines, whilst all high floor vehicles have retractable steps to allow entry from low platforms (which are also found on some high platform lines). The first few generations of high floor vehicles are all compatible and can be run together, as are both the low floor vehicle types with each other and the new high floor vehicles (though I've never seen that actually happen). In terms of rails the network is so interconnected that there's no visible distinction between individual lines, and all trains can run from any point to any station.
@@RMTransit yeah, there are high-platform stations. There are also stations with mixed high and low platforms in interchanges, even at least one cross-platform transfer with different heights. The king of different rail standards is probably the Ruhr area, with different gauges, eleectrifications and platform heights mixed in, sometimes interlining with each other with triple tack etc. Of course, there it isn't a case if switching to a more modern standard in later lines, but of multiple legacy standards meeting each other.
@@RMTransit yes 35 and 90cm, platforms regulary opperating both traintypes have lowered sections, but normaly there is a highfloor and a lowfloor network
I used to live in Boston. The city has four subway lines (color coded Green, Orange, Blue and Red) and four different vehicle standards. The Green Line, which opened in 1897 was a trolley subway and has always used trolley or light rail cars. The Orange Line was next in 1901 and set the the standards for the cars of that period. The cars were about 48 feet long and 8.5 feet wide (think New York's IRT cars). in 1904, Boston opened the Blue Line trolley subway that connected the city through a mile long underwater tunnel to East Boston. Standard trolleys were used. In 1912, the first phase of the Red Line was opened between Harvard Square, Cambridge to Park Street Station in Boston. New standards were adopted for the cars of this line. They which were 70 feet long and 10 feet wide (think BMT and IND). Finally, in the early 1920's, due to heavy ridership, trolley service on the Blue Line was proving to be inadequate and it was decided to convert the line to heavy rail. The new subway cars had to fit through the existing trolley tunnel which was built with tight curves and limited clearance. The cars were about 44 ft. long and 8.5 ft. The platform height of the stations in the rebuilt tunnel is about 1 foot lower than those of the Orange and Red Lines. During WWII, there was a Red Line car shortage. Cars from the Orange Line were trucked to Red Line terminals and put into service. There were significant gaps between the Red Line platforms and the Orange Line cars but the Boston Elevated Railway managed to work around that problem.
Don't forget the Blue Line's other exclusive feature: it uses third rail for the underground part of its route, and overhead catenary for the overground portions (switching between them at Airport). The Orange Line is third-rail only. And to add to all the different standards, there's the Silver Line that we don't talk about! It's an BRT with trolleybus wires for the underground portion and diesel motors for the rest of it!
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here at all; and you’ve made a good case for why interoperability isn’t an imperative. But I didn’t fully grasp a reason NOT to do it. Clearly maintaining a single track gauge allows maintenance equipment to be standardized and requires less storage space for parts such as wheel axles, etc. while still giving you a chance to push a trainset onto another line in the case of an emergency such as a flood or tunnel collapse or whatever. Did I miss something critical in the video? I do understand that having a variety of trains adds that intangible kind of fascination with the rolling stock (like you said, rail fans will thank you), but is that the only real reason to do so? Because I think that can still be done while maintaining a single track and station gauge.
Agreed. One can and should adopt the best technology available, like open gangways, while maintaining a compatible loading gauge and structure gauge. Choosing an incompatible infrastructure cuts off all future opportunities for merging lines as the city’s needs change in future generations.
exactly what i am thinking, unless the existing rolling stock is grossly inappropriate for the new proposed service, they should use the same train specifications as in my mind the benefit of existing proven and compatible technology in the city still outweighs the benefits stated in the video. Even if an additional standard is required due to the initial demand, just use the same gauge/ power settings with fewer train cars and don't make the decision of introducing a brand new standard lightly. Also it is in a way future proofing; having trains able to run on different lines gives the opportunities to connect up different lines together in a way suitable for the future time; even when the need/ idea was not there when the lines were built. This could be different service pattern using existing tracks, building new tracks to connect two existing lines in different parts of the city, or using existing less used tracks for a new line etc.
I have an extreme example: the proposed Line 4 for Manila is going to be a monorail because it connects a hilly province with the city center, so something that can handle steep grades was required, either a people mover or a monorail but something that has rubber tires. Also, to follow the Delhi Metro's example, new metro lines are developed in phases, so imagine proposing making something all-encompassing and unified such as the Washington DC Metro -- it's one gigantic upfront cost (and you're not sure if the standard you set will prove to be the correct standard), so there is hesistance there.
@@GDIdoujinmediaworks you’re absolutely right and I think in those cases it does make some sense. Although I’d consider a monorail to be an entirely different mode of transportation. I do think that phased projects can still adhere to a set of design specs especially with things like track gauge, even when phased over 20-30 years. But there are certainly limitations there for sure. Companies go out of business, best practices change, technology advances. There’s always bound to be some differences over a large enough time span.
100% agree, I understand the attractiveness of using a different more common standard just to get cheaper parts, systems and technologies but once you stray too far apart the costs of making new facilities, new training and different types of maintenance tools, that cheapness starts to disappear. And in the case of not being able to take trains from another line or use the facilities of another line, I can tell you that in the case of line 12 in Mexico City, this is a BIG disadvantage since the underground section should be fully operational but trains can't reach their only depot at the end of the line because of the colapse and now the line can't even operate at all because trains are just stuck there and can't make use of other facilities.
Critical mass is the important point. Going for different tram designs on the two very small LRT lines in Sydney has proved to be a disaster, now that the entire fleet on L1 had to be removed to fix design faults. Conversely, on the train network the inner city high density lines would be much better served by single-deck trains like the new Melbourne HCMTs rather than shoe-horning in the standardised double deck trains (that are great for the more suburban bits of the system)
Absolutely yes, you’ve made a really great comparison here. In the mainline rail system the capacity to have two series is there, probably not a good approach to the light rail
so you would propose that suburban double decker trains don't run into the city, and you would need to transfer to a single deck train? What would be a viable alternative? By the way if you weren't aware, the newer tram models are perfectly compatible with the closed line, and the line will soon be reopened at limited frequencies with the new trams until the old ones are repaired. (Of course this wouldn't be possible the other way around, as the older trams don't have APS third rail, although theoretically they should still be able to be run on the majority of the route with pantograph if there were enough vehicles to spare.)
I'd say you don't need the entire design to be the exact same but you do want some details of the design to be the same, like track gauge, loading gauge, and door placement. Interoperability would still be a great thing to have, even if it's not for the sake of interlining. Here in NYC we have MANY subway yards and maintenance facilities; typically at least one per train service ("line" refers to the physical infrastructure here, so a train service typically runs over multiple lines). However, we only have two heavy overhaul shops: 207th St Yard and Coney Island Yard. Building a facility for heavy maintenance on every line would be tremendously expensive, and so would having to move incompatible trains to a maintenance facility by truck! Another minor point is compatibility of non-revenue equipment. Can your one tamper *safely* operate on both standard and Toronto gauge, or will you then need to purchase an additional tamper?
Having non-standard track gauges is an utter nightmare because trains are are rarely built where they are used. Having a non-standard track gauge means that the trains have to be trucked to site - they can’t be delivered by rail. That’s why track gauges WERE standardised in the first place. (And London had four different track gauges when it’s rail network was built as an example - it now has one).
Well of course it should have more than one train. Otherwise the headways would be hours or even days. Now, multiple *types* of train. That's a more interesting question.
Here in Santiago, the 3 rubber-tired lines (1, 2, and 5) are *technically* compatible, and some train models are shared between 2 or more of these lines. However, since line 1's autopilot is CBTC (phase 3) and 2 and 5's is Alstom's SACEM, and since line 1 is already retrofitted with CBTC and most semaphores are only on if a train comes from another line to go to a depot IIRC, the only way you can see an 'NS-74' on Line 1 these days is if it's being transported to that line's depot. Furthermore, trains that run in Line 1 are not capable of operating in lines 2 and 5 unless being driven manually (except the NS-93 which, AFAIK, has both systems hanging out there to have easy interchange between the 3 lines), and longer trains from that line don't fit into most stations in lines 2 and 5. Sorry for the cluttered nature of the comment hahaha, great video!
Probably kind of like how Singapore's Circle & Downtown Lines have the same specifications e.g. 750V DC 3rd rail, 3-car ~70m long platforms & trainsets with 4 doors/side/car probably as the latter was built later but it's 1st stage was originally planned to be under the former instead. Then when the gov't changed its mind, it chose a different signalling system for the latter though (Siemens TrainGuard (formerly Invensys Sirius) instead of Alstom Urbalis 300) so the 2 lines' rolling stock now end up being incompatible unless manually driven, though the newer system has the advantage of faster deceleration & having an additional backup fixed-block system (besides CBTC). Should both lines do resignalling in the future I think that's an opportunity to switch them to the same signalling system (though the 2 lines are currently operated by different companies, which might need to be looked into too). I'd say though that the countries' even older North South & East West Lines might want to continue using a different signalling system though since those 2 lines run mostly above ground & thus need a more complicated system to take into account rain making tracks more slippery & reducing trains' deceleration, which the other 2 lines don't need since they're fully underground instead.
Video title: "Should your metro system have more than one train?" Video content: "Should your metro system have more than one *type of* train?" Very different questions!
Well here in Warsaw we're currently provinng that you can run more than one high frequency fairly decently with just one depot. Now, line M2 will get it's dedicated depot eventually, but thanks to interoperability it could be opend in stages starting with the most needed AND most expensive to build central section, and expanding to the outer districts and to eventual new depot ever since.
Meanwhile Singapore's Downtown Line trains were serviced at a temporary siding in the underground & downtown Marina Bay station back when the line's Stage 1 had opened but not Stage 2 (2013-15), which connects Stage 1 to the line's eventual permanent _Gali Batu_ depot
Fun fact: our streetcars and subways use a different gauge because way back in the day the railway companies had so much pull that if we had made our streetcar tracks standard gauge they would have pushed for and most likely succeeded in running their freight trains on any set of tracks they wanted to! The city of Toronto was run by smart people back then who didn’t want hazardous and polluting freight trains running through the city streets. Makes sense to me
1.) The desire for competitive bidding to supply rolling stock an still be satisfied if companies compete to supply a compatible standard. Sydney's system has had multiple contractors supplying rolling stock for what was a unified standard. As for different companies *operating* the trains, I think the idea is questionable at best. Also competition is a wobbly concept between different lines, and not a reason in itself to operate incompatible technologies. 2.) Using basically compatible tech allows for flexibility in how you run a network as a city and its demographics change. A network should BE a network. I'm not saying you shouldn't modernise the trains or run different lengths etc to suit traffic, but have them basically interoperable. This is not the same as constantly interlining, it's just the ability to travel to different lines if emergencies, occasional special needs, or long-term changes require it.This includes simply moving train sets between lines/depots. RM Transit itself has praised Sydney's Metro for being compatible enough to allow this if need be. 3.) Running different gauges seems awful. It's bad enough in Australia for example with gauge changes at state borders. I suppose there might be a reason to (say) go to from narrow standard gauge for a new line, but eventually you'd want to convert all the lines to one gauge.
it’s not like older systems don’t also diversify. they often have many different standards. in london, there are various different systems that run in a metro/rapid transit way with different standards. the underground is split down the middle with some trains wider and some trains smaller, there’s the DLR, arguably even the London Overground in parts, especially between highbury & islington and surrey keys.
After seeing what's going on with wmata in dc, YES there should be fleets from different manufacturers, BUT I think all lines should be connected. They don't have to interline, but having a connection with every line in the system is beneficial especially for yard moves and fleet delivery. That's something Bart, Marta, and even WMATA does. Marta and WMATA have single track connections for it's services, while the entire Bart system is connected by the Oakland WYE.
I would add that although the trains on the various lines of the Beijing Subway are not interoperable(different electrification, number of cars, signaling, etc) they do all run on standard gauge and can mostly physically pass through other lines even if they can not do so under their own power. There are some connections between lines and to the national rail network at various points. So a new subway train can be towed by a locomotive from the manufacturer (such as CRRC Changchun) via the national rail network to one of the many connection points between the subway system and the national rail network. Then towed by a maintenance vehicle to the depot possibly passing through a few other lines. It does make delivery of new trains and returning of trains for overhaul a lot easier. I think there are definitely some benefits of maintaining some minimal inter compatibility (track and loading gauge) even on otherwise independent systems. Although this should be a "nice to have" feature and not preclude the use of a more appropriate train for the line.
@Zaydan Naufal Despite its name meaning "long spring" Changchun is in northeastern China and gets pretty cold during the winter. Then again it has a robust district heating system and power grid so I suppose it is better than staying in Texas :)
Here on the London Underground, all our trains use different equipment, but they are all set to fit on the same type of third/fourth rail system and track gauge.
There is some of what the Americans call “interlining” (eg Subsurface lines, Met/Piccadilly), but some lines’ trains can’t be taken off their lines (the Victoria for one)
For some cities i’ve always asked that question especially for systems i feel should have some expansion . Case in point : Charlotte CATS light rail . I’ve looked over several future expansion maps and see that there is a planned regional rail line but no service to the CLT Airport . I know a lot of people don’t want that but at least for AA employees such as myself who would like to use transit rather than my car it would help
Standardization can even exist between ciities. The two largest cities in the south German state of Bavaria, Munich and Nuremberg, both started building metros in the late 1960ies. The lines were built to the same dimensions and used the same type of train. During the 1972 Olympics Munich borrowed Nuremberg trains! In the intervening fifty years the two cities have rather drifted apart. (Munich is about twice the size of Nuremberg!) On two of its three lines Nuremberg uses short fully automatic driverless trains. All Munich trains are full length and carry an attendant in the front cab.
I think different standards for different line numbers / colors will be the future, since the international companies would like to have as many chances as possible to join bids even if they are not as big as the unified standard for the entire metro kind of project. At the same time, the standards will more or less unify to a few set specifications e.g. 750V or 1.5KV as you mentioned, usually standard gauge, narrow (2.5m), regular (2.8m-3m) or wide (3.2-3.3m) trains depending on requirements. Every international rolling stock company will make sure it's something that they can construct using their existing modular systems.
The adventage of a conected network is, that if the demanded routes change, for example a used to be housing district of the city becomes more and more a working-district, and there are a lot of interchanges between the lines, it is possible to change the network acording to demand. If the lines are separated and of diferent standarts, the network is much harder to adapt to changing travel routes. This also can be a factor, if there is a big (sport) stadium, that is located on a usually low density line, but if an event happens, trains can eigther be used on different lines then usual, or even some special lines using the infrastructure of different normal lines can be put in service for the duration of the event-transport.
As for the longer narrower vs shorter larger debate, the question is simple, it all depends on the width that is available to you for the stations. In normal conditions building a station with a 5 to 6 m wide platforms (on the side), it makes a very little difference if the trains are 2.40 m or 2.90 m large. It will require much less more concrete to pour in than elongating a station from 90 m to 120 m for example. That's why the Grand Paris Express went from 120 m long 2.45 m large trains like Paris metro standard to 108 m long 2.95 m large trains for the GPX project to save money while still having similar passenger capacity. The debate is simple, larger shorter is the best most of the time for station size cost savings. As for special railways in tight spaces, well, that's another problem. As for the rolling stock, I'd say, it would be better to have similar rolling stock on all lines, (from the same maneufacturer even if different versions are running on different lines, the same maneufacturer can make the same trains in different lengths and configurations but using the same spare parts and technology, thus reducing the costs while preserving each line's caracteristics dependongs on the places they go through), again see the Grand Paris Express project, line 15 will have six car trains, lines 16 and 17 will have the same trains but three cars. (not Multiple Units on line 15, note). Line 18 was designed on another level, using Paris standards for train width (less traffic and also partly overground route) with three car trains, different power supply (third rail rather than overhead rigid wire but still 1500 v, the trains will still have many similar caracteristics to their bigger counterparts, same kind of trains by the same maker (Alstom Metropolis style) so I guess that bogeys and electronics will be rather similar. Yet again, it is because Alstom produces lots of different trains based on the same framework all over the world, it is not a gadgetbahn properitary system. Line 18 will be built to eventually accomodate a 4th car on its strains anyway if needed. As for Paris metro, not all lines of the same running style are compatible thanks to signalling standards, at least not without modifying the signalling system of the trains. Older trains could run on all lines before signalling was changed for newer trains. Back in the day during the expansion of the network, all of the famously known Sprague-Thompson rolling stocks, of all generations were all compatible between eachother, a car could be changed to another trainset no problem, air conduits and electrical systems were the same even if it meant that the newer ones in the 30s were designed as already obsolete on some aspects but the CMP wanted all cars to be exchangable from a train to another. Even old car from the very early days were incorporated into newer sets or pieces of thoses kept to be put on newer cars (old wooden doors for example), some lines were running with shorter cars in a longer car trainset at some point, quite artisanal in a way. In the 50s, the young RATP tried short and long trains depending on timetable hours (short in off peak hours and long in rush hours), it was a logistical nightmare, the line on which they were tried (Northern part of what is line 13 now) wasn't designed for that kind of operation and as it caused more problems than anything else, the three car MA51 trains were soon running in Multiple unit configuration all the time (the cars were shorter than those of the other stocks so a six car train could fit into a 75 m long station where the usual stock is usually 5x15 m cars). The trainsets were soon moved to the calmer line 10 and replaced on line 13 by brand new MF67s (later replaced by the solid hexagonal shaped MF77s). I saw the last MA51 on line 10 when I was a child and I likes those (smell and feeling close to a Sprague Thompson stock, technically outdated even at launch, doors not locked during transit between stations !!! Quite the experience. Also featuring a folding driving cab for Multiple Unit operation so the space could be reclaimed for passengers ! Also worth noting, all Paris lines have service tracks linking to another line mostly at big stations. Tire trains from line 11 can even take line 3 (after taking off their wheels for temporary ones, and most of the time, the trains are lifted through an elevator at the terminus workshop to be taken by road, car by car to Fontenay main tire train heavy workshop, fortunately, the situation will end with the extension of the line having its own main workshop (the former one must be run through and demolished to extend the tracks anyway, same happened on line 14 when it was extended to St Ouen, it got its own shop and liberated the space behind Olympiades to extend the line to Orly). But sometimes you can see a train going in maintenance service from a line to another, which is convenient when a dedicated workshop is being rebuilt, trains can go to another. And to be fair, the future privatizing of the network will make worshops dedicated to each line mandatory... but RATP will remain the infrastructure owner and all service junctions will remain so the infra maintenance trains from La Villette yard, the ONLY infrastructure maintenance facility in the whole network can have access to the whole network. The GPX will have its own sets of worhops (one or two for line 15, a second at Orly for line 14, one for line 18 and one for both lines 16 and 17 taking the place of an old car factory. As for infrastructure maintenance, line 18 will have its own while lines 15, 16 and 17, operating on the same standard will have one, with a maintenance junction between 15 and the 16/17 tunnel at St Denis (again RATP will be the infrastructure owner here according to Grand Paris Law)
In general I'd argue wider trains = more passenger comfort. Especially on a metro, a long, narrow train can make it more difficult to use when crowded.
There's an elevator capable of lifting subway cars at Mairie des Lilas ?? Wow I never knew that ! When is it scheduled for demolition ? Are there pictures somewhere ?
Wider trains means wider tunnels need to be dug though, which raises construction costs too. Am thinking if Singapore took this too far by building its fully underground Circle & Downtown Lines with the same loading gauge as older lines (3.2x3.7m cross section) but with platforms half the length (~70m for 3 cars instead of ~138m for 6 cars)
In Hong Kong, All urban lines are connected: Island, Tsuen Wan, Kwun Tong and Tseung Kwan O and due to lack of rolling stock and the original M-train stopped manufacturing, so MTR bought the new K-train for Tseung Kwan O Line, C train for extend service frequency. However, in early time of Tseung Kwan O line, due to the depot operation contractor did not know the maintenance of K-train, so that time, K-train swap to Kwun Tong Line until the contract end. MTR is receiving the new train, nick name as Q-train to replace all M-Train.
I‘d call for yes to interoperability and intermaintainability where reasonable: track gauge, loading gauge or max axle load? Enable through-towing of at least single level cars with nearby heavy rail unless you have a darn good reason why you‘d never in a century or two would want to do that, you can always go and buy smaller and stuff things into voids, widening is a heck of a lot harder… floor height and door placement? Standardize that as far as possible to high floor and keep the doors at standard locations to have an easy time fitting platform screen doors that still enable interoperability, should that ever become desirable… wear items like seats, brake pads/shoes, pantograph strips, third rail shoes, …? Keep them as standardized as technology permits (yes, disc brakes need different parts than old shoe brakes, but there’s no reason buying fifteen different customer information screen types if you’re running the same software… as for power systems? If possible, try to enable everything to run everywhere (750DC overhead or third rail, the motors can’t tell, so if you have the space, just install a panto too. Obviously, a 25000AC train will have a harder time running on DC, but if you can standardize on digging the clearances necessary for an upgrade down the line, should it become necessary or cheaper. But generally, you’ll want the tunnels too big and the trains too small in order to set you up for easy expansion somewhen down the line, and if you choose your standards wisely but not too rigid, it’s probably the best. As a rule of thumb, you’ll probably want the standards to be as rigid and widespread as it is easy to restandardize your network…
Answer there should be multiple types because it allows varied passenger experiences and if an older model breaks down then a new model train can be sent to take over the job of an older model.
Speaking of inter-connectivity: A former friend worked for the NY MTA and told me they have a maintenance train that can adapt to different gauges: it can leave the NY system, travel down the N.E. corridor to D.C. then go on that system because the distance between the wheels is "self" adjustable. He did not tell me if it can use overhead wires for power but it has height adjustable third rail shoes just like the new New Haven Division trains on Metro North (so they could go on the LIRR if needed).
I still think the Ontario line needs to be the same size trains as the rest of the subway network because this is meant to be a relief line so if you have trains that are too small it will just get overcrowded and not solve the overcrowding issues on line 1
The issue with this is that there is no logical end point to how much capacity you need. The Ontario Line route isn’t as developed as Yonge and likely won’t be for a LONG time and hence less capacity is needed while still serving a relief role
Not necessarily true. Capacity is dealt with in many ways, only one of them being the physical size of the train cars. Train length, frequency, number of doors on the train, platform screen doors, station sizing, number of stations etc all play a role in capacity.
@@RMTransit but the “relief line” has its own stops on route so it will probably still get overcrowded and then you factor in induced demand and boom overcrowded Ontario line A way to fight the induced demand is with bigger trains and higher capacity
You was saying about new lines using similar trains etc one example was the Victoria line it was connected to the Piccadilly line so trains could reach Acton works which then was the central overhaul works for the underground day to day maintenance was done at Northumberland park Victoria line depot ,thats why they had to use similar dimension tube stock but to the latest design 1965 when the design was frozen for production the only thing was the 1967 stock was ATO and had to able to run on the conventional Piccadilly line aswell ,one idea was to have bigger dimensions and the trains were to be articulated to take advantage of bigger tunnels but as they had to reach Acton they couldn’t do this now the Victoria has all overhauls done at Northumberland park the latest 2009 can take advantage of the Victoria’s slightly larger tunnel dimensions so in effect the stock is stuck on the Victoria i believe they tried running a unit on the Piccadilly but stopped incase of damage a friend on LU told me ??,maybe we need a clean sheet of paper design for metros this I’ve spoken about when I done a paper on future of London area transportation when I was at college mind you that was in the eighties 😊,great channel
Most of the metro lines in Taipei can be connected(red,blue,orange and green) because they use the same railway signalling and identical trains.Therefore, the construction cost can be much lower because the entire network just need one depot for overhauls. btw can u plz do a video for Taipei Metro?
I think the question should be, is there a reason you’re diverting from your standard? I actually don’t think getting a cheaper packaged deal in the bidding stage is enough of a reason on its own. You’re going to have a much much longer timeframe running and maintaining your system then building it (hopefully). So, unless you’re building a very large and important line or are planning to build multiple lines to the new standard, compatibility is probably going to be the better longterm solution. It seems quite common for cities to have a bigger and a smaller standard, which seems reasonable. But if every line is different, that just seems like a maintenance nightmare.
Heck, even the new Malaysia east coast interstate rail (MRL) decide to build in 1435mm standard gauge (by China engineering CCCC) instead of 19 century British built meter gauge (KTM) So whether or not a bunch of train systems is going to compatible with each others really goes like "it depends"
If the recently-completed Lao-China Railway (LCR) is standard gauge then it'd also have a break-of-gauge when it's extended southwards into Thailand, which like Malaysia uses metre gauge too. So if the plan to extend it all the way to Bangkok is going ahead a brand new rail line might've to be built in Thailand, raising costs, but on the plus side higher speeds would be supported
You should have a standard sure bout that does not mean that you sound not operate legcsy lines. U6 shows that and you don't need to connect all lines U3 shows that. And you can modernize your standard if you build something new U5 shows that.
i think some parameters should be fixed in a subway system: Track gauge, loading gauge, and possible platform length (doesn't need to be fully build but possible to lengthen every platform to a certain lenght ), this makes it possible to easily convert system if use patterns change or Extensions get build you can't tell today if people in a hundred years will have the same target locations, if your lines are completely different you could never adjust that, but if the basic dimensions are the same you can easily make these adjustments, of course when you are pretty big or have legacy systems it might be still a good idea to create multiple standart, but having completly different systems on each and every line doesn't, make sense
I always go for interchangeably. If I had my way the airtrain in New York York City that connects to John F. Kennedy Airport would have been interconnectable with the New York Subway for example.
Ohare has Metra and the cta. Both go downtown the cta has one station. The Metra station need stairs and evaluator and more trains. You have to take the tram to connect to the cta station. The Metra line goes close to Wisconsin boarder. The third rail can shock you
KAI commuter operate many different types of old Japanese trains, the most common being Tokyo Metro 6000 series and JR East 205 series. The railways here use 1067mm gauge and 1500 v catenary. MRT Jakarta also use the same standards
I agree with some previous comments that obtaining critical mass is benficial, but getting to critical mass doesn't require every line to have the same specifications, as you say. Even for short lines, you can get the benefits of standardization by grouping them to obtain critical mass. If you want to build a new line with a different technology, use that same technology for the next line, too.
The answer is yes. It’s total ridiculous having different standards. I can understand newer lines having newer trains and tech but the old lines should be able to be upgraded easily. And having different gauges…….wtf!!!!!! That’s a HUGE no no. Period. Here in the State of Victoria (Australia) the gauge is the same and although suburban trains are electric and regional trains diesel, we have servicing areas in regional areas and the diesel locos can pull the electric units to the service area if need be. And when the electric is extended we don’t have to rebuild tracks as they are the same gauge.
Another big issue that you missed is evacuation, if a city/ country needs to be evacuated in a hurry the best bet is trains, if they cannot travel on tracks within the same city, then they definitely cannot use nationwide lines this could cause millions on deaths
Interestingly TTC subway Lines 1 and 2 look like they are compatible, indeed when Line 2 first opened, approx every second WB Line 2 train used lower Bay Station and went then SB down University Ave along Line 1. This soon ended, partially due to user confusion. Today however Line 1 has a mostly upgraded signalling and control system and all its new Rocket Trains are compatible with that. Line 2 does not (yet) and thus Line 1 trains can (occasionally) operate on Line 2, however the converse not normally possible. Each Line does have its own MSF’s.
A entire workshop with the equipment for all maintenance (with the big reversions every few years) is cheaper then a little connection track? This statement is very questionable. The most systems which I know have a few workshops for daily maintenance, but only one big workshop for big revisions.
A little connection track isn’t cheap when it requires tunneling in many cases. And generally each line is going to ideally have a dedicated maintenance facility anyways on any fairly large system.
In London's case they decided that having to Low Loader trains for their 10 year overhaul was worth the extra space making the VIctoria Line trains slightly bigger gave them.
After watching all that, I'm more confused than ever as to why Mr Gadgetbahn would decide that certain incompatible systems are okay and not gadgetbahns, and to be welcomed after all.
In Berlin you see again how compatibility between the small- and big-loading gauge network is carried almost too far. After opening of the big loading gauge lines in the 1st half of 20th century recently again there are “narrow” cars operating on the “big” lines intermediately rebuilt with what Berlin people call “flower boards” to bridge the gap to the platforms - due not having enough cars (ordered in time) for the bigger loading gauge part of the network ^^
A couple of items,references to the IRT! The original concept of the subway equipment,was to be compatible with the existing Elevated lines! Those lines were 50 foot length,and 9 foot width,and built to,what is now,Boston,and Chicago standards! When the Dual Contracts,were put in,the then BRT,came up with the 60 foot,10foot standards,later copied by the IND,so that is what governed the subway lines in NYC! Note also that the BRT/BMT Elevated lines,were the IRT Elevated standards 50 foot,9foot,and actually compatible on third rail,add the Long Island Railroad through running(both steam,and electric),there was a rather large network in place prior to the building of the subway! London had similar issues,and because of Yerkes,Boston,and Chicago standards were used in the electrification,and exists today! This is a very capsulated history,and has omitted much material,and I apologize,but this is a subject of a multiple volume encyclopedia! Thank you for your attention! I 😇 💯💯💯💯💯💯💢💥💢💥💢💥💫
Here in Singapore, the newer lined are separate from the legacy lines. I think it’s a good thing since the probability of system disruption due to software malfunction is reduced. Even if it happens, it’s localised to the respective line. I do however agree to having an international standard gauge. Took the London Tube… it feels small and narrow. And it’s really short for a tall person like me
In Delhi, there are literally different gauges in different lines lol. Almost all lines have a different rolling stock. And it works just fine. So not as big of a problem.
Interoperability is essential for cost effective expansion. Sorry. Having different standards or gauges is silly. It adds cost. And you can’t ignore that.
In İstanbul, some metro and tram lines are connected each other but nearly every line has different rolling stock. (except for M3 and M9 lines because M9 line was derived from the Olympics branch of the M3)
Imagine building in 2000 a LRT system which operates as metro, but at the same time being compatible (track gage and power) with your tram network from 1872 which only uses trams from the 1930s, mainly for tourists 🤣🤣 Oh yeah, that's Porto Metro for ya! Theoretically you can use the metros (modern trams basically) for true tram service after their retirement from metro service though... 🤔🤔
In Hong Kong, all lines are theoretically inter-compatible except the East Rail Link and Tuen Ma Line because the East Rail Link and Tuen Ma Line was built and operated by another company before 2008. Also, I say “theoretically” because the height of the trains and the tunnels are different which caused some gore and South Island Line don’t have a connection to the rest of the network.
San Diego MTS says an airport trolley is better than the APM option partly because the airport trolley has more brand recognition than an APM. In reality, people don't care if your train is called a trolley, or an APM, is red or purple, or is automated or not. They care about convenience and frequency. The airport trolley will come only every 15 minutes and eat up trunk line capacity and thus is inferior to an APM. I've also heard the argument that an APM to the airport will make way finding more difficult vs. if the trolley was extended to the airport. Ahem, tell that to London with its many modes and excellent way finding.
Idk... The presence of people movers that are often a one of a kind systems does make me think more standardization is better. Man i hate expensive people movers built because cool rather than practical... (If you are wondering why the hate, in Pisa a perfectly fine railway connecting the trains station to the airport was first removed in favor of an express Busline, that it self was later removed to build an automated people mover that used the same corridor as the railways but at 10 times the cost and without service beyond late evening/early morning)
Well, it sort of makes sense in many cases since people movers need to self optimize and are almost always fully self contained! It’s a fun thought experiment
Very idealistic but realty is a lot harder to achieve with political appetite, operational rules and regulations to name a few. I just viewed his bus video yesterday and I think he fallen into a similar rabbit hole. Great if you are rebuilding everything scratch but from an existing, it doesn’t work unless the government have great ambitions.
Even though Copenhagens S-train system seems to relativ on only 1 type of train it actually had 3 generations of trains running from 1997 to 2006. The 3rd generation ran from 1986 to 2007 and the 2nd generation ran from sometimes in the 60'ies until 2007. So it lasted longer than the troubled 3rd generation. The 4th generation was introduced in 1997 and can be found in a 4 and 8 car version. The 1st and 2nd generation train ran together from 1967 to 1978. The 5th generation that most likely will be driverless will be tested on the Ring Line (Line F) in 5 years time. So then we will have 2 types of trains running again. The metro runs with 2 types of trains . The 1st and 5th generation of the Ansaldo driverless train, but they do not share lines.
I just love at 11:35 when we see the new trains and track being tested for the Eglinton Crosstown. In the place designed for advertising, is written, "Testing, testing, 1,2,3." Someone has a wonderful sense of humour. Having said that, Toronto's main problem with non-standard technology is a provincial government that every so often has a snake-oil salesman sell them some new and dubious form of technology. The sales pitch is that it will be built here in Ontario, thereby founding an industry that will take over the transit world with its wondrous new technology. Thereby bringing massive money and jobs to Ontario. Somehow, that never works out, the technology is a flop, and now we are stuck with the headache of running a line with non-standard technology. For example, the SRT "toy train" line. Is this still shut down from the snowstorm two weeks ago?
HK MTR has two systems that has two overhaul yards Kowloon Bay and Shatin due to merger. And one control system. Only South Island island is isolated from other line. Formerly colonial govt wanted to save money.
And yet we are getting all the silly comments about why the Sydney West airport line is being built 25kvac rather than 1500vdc. Hopefully Reece will defend the difference.
London underground is divided into larger Sub surface and smaller deeper tube !Ines the sub surface all use the same type of train the S type either in 8 or 7 coach configuration ,gradually this system is moving to Automation but there will still be a driver present to start and stop the train , the Tube lines however each one has its own stock from various manufacturers ordered at different historical times and specifications , they date from the seventies up to the millennium ,a number of tube !Ines are semi automatic with an operative who stops and starts the train , one tube line is very bendy so has to use shorter carriages , train stock on the tube lines is not interchangeable with other lines ,so each line has its own exclusive stock , this is an historical thing as fleets for each have ordered separately at different times , this will be addressed as each line receives new stock starting with the Piccadilly line in 2025 all new stock will be compatible ! Problem is because tube stock is unique in the Metro world ,it is expensive to build and design !
@@RMTransit I remember you mentioned cross platform transfers as the easiest form of transfer between lines. Would such transfers be possible with trains that use different technology ?
I think having multiple types of trains is useful because each type serves a different purpose. Also from a transit fan perspective the diversity is super fun :)
Before watching the video, I can definitively answer that, yes, your metro system should definitively have more than just a single train.
Imagine having to wait for that one train
well you can always have 2
one going up the line, one going down the line. sadly it would only work once.
@@Aliceintraining is that a Wayside School reference??? 💜
@@Aliceintraining that's basically commuter rail rn
@@illiiilli24601 yep, a childrens book can share the folly of commuter rail in a way that most adults can understand like 30 plus years after it was printed.
For people wondering why overhead is becoming popular in subways, it's thanks to a new technique called "rigid catenary". Which works by attaching the contact wire on aluminum extrusion carriers fixated on tunnel walls instead of hanging the contact wire from fixed supports. That way, space requirement of overhead system is reduced dramatically, which in turns makes cross sectional area of tunnels way smaller, almost as small as tunnels for third rail systems. With space issues mostly gone, overhead becomes much better option. You can run higher voltages, live wires and surfaces kept far away from people (especially in maintenance facilities) and pantographs are quiter for passengers and cheaper for operators.
Is it still catenary if it's rigid? 🤔
@@PtrkHrnk yes, the only difference between rigid catenary and traditional overhead systems is how the contact wire is supported. Other than that, it's exactly the same, and trains can run on and transition between both systems no problem.
Actually, the Marmaray line in Istanbul uses rigid catenary on tunnel section between Ayrılıkçeşme and Kazlıçeşme stations, rest of the line is traditional overhead system. Trains simply run through it.
They must have some way of making the wire "wobble" a little to ensure even wear on the pantograph.
Muhammed has made an excellent point to mention rigid cat!
@@RMTransit A cool place to see that is on the lower level of Berlin Hbf 😉
The simplicity of London Underground is a deception - many deep level lines aren't compatible with each other. Central line has slightly smaller tunnels that require trains with custom wheels and current pickup gear. Bakerloo and Piccadilly lines have very twisted tunnels and require shorter individual train cars. Victoria line has slightly larger tunnels and correspondingly larger trains. And don't get me started on the signalling systems - even the newest systems on Jubilee and Northern lines are incompatible with each other. TfL spent a lot of money to unify subsurface lines' trains - and even then they ended up with 2 different train lengths.
IIRC the Original 1960s Victoria Line trains were standard size but the tunnels were built slightly larger to allow for higher speeds. When the 2009 stock was ordered they opted to reduce the speeds slightly (but massively increase acceleration) and built the trains to fit the larger tunnels to give more passenger space - this does mean the 2009 stock can only leave the line by road as they don't fit through the connection with the Piccadilly at Finsbury Park
When the first London Underground lines were built, they were planned and constructed by different private companies often in competition with each other so compatibity was not foremost in their minds. The legacy of that is still evident today.
@@railotaku Originally thought that by the '60s tunnelling technology had advanced to the point that the Victoria line's tunnels could've been built even bigger, big enough to accommodate sub-surface-sized rolling stock
Old metro systems often had weird standards to prevent rival companies from using their infrastructure.
The IRT and BMT rivalry of the nyc subway is a great example
That's what I learned when it came to SEPTA's Subway lines in Philadelphia. For at least a year, I was bugging myself about why the Market Frankford Line was built to the unique Pennsylvania Trolley Gauge while the Broad Street Line was built to Standard Gauge. Now I know why.
@@cjuice9039 Also the IRT and H&M rivalry.
In Philly, PRT had no rivals as it completed the consolidation process among the older horse car and electric traction lines. The trolley gauge came about because those predecessor lines didn't want the mainline RR's butting in, and PRT was of the same mind when it came to the Market st. subway-elevated. (Built entirely with PRT's own money). The original Market St. line was a first generation rapid transit system like the IRT, and the Chicago 'L' , a characteristic of those systems is their smaller rolling stock .
By comparison, the city-built Broad Street Line infrastructure was heavily influenced by the BRT/BMT, which featured larger stations, loading gauge, and rolling stock.
Well, Paris Metro was build narrowly so trains can’t travel into the tunnels
Another argument for train standardization is route changes. Throughout the history of the MTA's ownership of the NYC subway, there have been various route changes - particularly with the B division - to accommodate periodic demand fluctuation. Population concentrations and desired destinations do very well change over time, and not considering changes in future demand seems silly. Standardization can allow for trains to operate along multiple different lines at a time, where needed.
My local LRT network is operationally split into two parts, one using high floor vehicles and one using 70% Low floor vehicles. The low floor vehicles can naturally only be used on low platform height lines, whilst all high floor vehicles have retractable steps to allow entry from low platforms (which are also found on some high platform lines). The first few generations of high floor vehicles are all compatible and can be run together, as are both the low floor vehicle types with each other and the new high floor vehicles (though I've never seen that actually happen). In terms of rails the network is so interconnected that there's no visible distinction between individual lines, and all trains can run from any point to any station.
Köln?
@@samuell.foxton4177
Yes
Are there lines with high platforms? I guess not then? I wouldn’t necessarily call it two standards if platforms are all the same!
@@RMTransit yeah, there are high-platform stations. There are also stations with mixed high and low platforms in interchanges, even at least one cross-platform transfer with different heights.
The king of different rail standards is probably the Ruhr area, with different gauges, eleectrifications and platform heights mixed in, sometimes interlining with each other with triple tack etc. Of course, there it isn't a case if switching to a more modern standard in later lines, but of multiple legacy standards meeting each other.
@@RMTransit yes 35 and 90cm, platforms regulary opperating both traintypes have lowered sections, but normaly there is a highfloor and a lowfloor network
I used to live in Boston. The city has four subway lines (color coded Green, Orange, Blue and Red) and four different vehicle standards. The Green Line, which opened in 1897 was a trolley subway and has always used trolley or light rail cars. The Orange Line was next in 1901 and set the the standards for the cars of that period. The cars were about 48 feet long and 8.5 feet wide (think New York's IRT cars). in 1904, Boston opened the Blue Line trolley subway that connected the city through a mile long underwater tunnel to East Boston. Standard trolleys were used. In 1912, the first phase of the Red Line was opened between Harvard Square, Cambridge to Park Street Station in Boston. New standards were adopted for the cars of this line. They which were 70 feet long and 10 feet wide (think BMT and IND). Finally, in the early 1920's, due to heavy ridership, trolley service on the Blue Line was proving to be inadequate and it was decided to convert the line to heavy rail. The new subway cars had to fit through the existing trolley tunnel which was built with tight curves and limited clearance. The cars were about 44 ft. long and 8.5 ft. The platform height of the stations in the rebuilt tunnel is about 1 foot lower than those of the Orange and Red Lines.
During WWII, there was a Red Line car shortage. Cars from the Orange Line were trucked to Red Line terminals and put into service. There were significant gaps between the Red Line platforms and the Orange Line cars but the Boston Elevated Railway managed to work around that problem.
Boston is one of those very unique cases where everyone is different standards as you mention
Don't forget the Blue Line's other exclusive feature: it uses third rail for the underground part of its route, and overhead catenary for the overground portions (switching between them at Airport). The Orange Line is third-rail only.
And to add to all the different standards, there's the Silver Line that we don't talk about! It's an BRT with trolleybus wires for the underground portion and diesel motors for the rest of it!
@@rananite we don’t talk about the Silver Line
@@PaulFisher No, no, no!
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here at all; and you’ve made a good case for why interoperability isn’t an imperative. But I didn’t fully grasp a reason NOT to do it. Clearly maintaining a single track gauge allows maintenance equipment to be standardized and requires less storage space for parts such as wheel axles, etc. while still giving you a chance to push a trainset onto another line in the case of an emergency such as a flood or tunnel collapse or whatever. Did I miss something critical in the video? I do understand that having a variety of trains adds that intangible kind of fascination with the rolling stock (like you said, rail fans will thank you), but is that the only real reason to do so? Because I think that can still be done while maintaining a single track and station gauge.
Agreed. One can and should adopt the best technology available, like open gangways, while maintaining a compatible loading gauge and structure gauge. Choosing an incompatible infrastructure cuts off all future opportunities for merging lines as the city’s needs change in future generations.
exactly what i am thinking, unless the existing rolling stock is grossly inappropriate for the new proposed service, they should use the same train specifications as in my mind the benefit of existing proven and compatible technology in the city still outweighs the benefits stated in the video. Even if an additional standard is required due to the initial demand, just use the same gauge/ power settings with fewer train cars and don't make the decision of introducing a brand new standard lightly.
Also it is in a way future proofing; having trains able to run on different lines gives the opportunities to connect up different lines together in a way suitable for the future time; even when the need/ idea was not there when the lines were built. This could be different service pattern using existing tracks, building new tracks to connect two existing lines in different parts of the city, or using existing less used tracks for a new line etc.
I have an extreme example: the proposed Line 4 for Manila is going to be a monorail because it connects a hilly province with the city center, so something that can handle steep grades was required, either a people mover or a monorail but something that has rubber tires. Also, to follow the Delhi Metro's example, new metro lines are developed in phases, so imagine proposing making something all-encompassing and unified such as the Washington DC Metro -- it's one gigantic upfront cost (and you're not sure if the standard you set will prove to be the correct standard), so there is hesistance there.
@@GDIdoujinmediaworks you’re absolutely right and I think in those cases it does make some sense. Although I’d consider a monorail to be an entirely different mode of transportation.
I do think that phased projects can still adhere to a set of design specs especially with things like track gauge, even when phased over 20-30 years. But there are certainly limitations there for sure. Companies go out of business, best practices change, technology advances. There’s always bound to be some differences over a large enough time span.
100% agree, I understand the attractiveness of using a different more common standard just to get cheaper parts, systems and technologies but once you stray too far apart the costs of making new facilities, new training and different types of maintenance tools, that cheapness starts to disappear.
And in the case of not being able to take trains from another line or use the facilities of another line, I can tell you that in the case of line 12 in Mexico City, this is a BIG disadvantage since the underground section should be fully operational but trains can't reach their only depot at the end of the line because of the colapse and now the line can't even operate at all because trains are just stuck there and can't make use of other facilities.
Critical mass is the important point. Going for different tram designs on the two very small LRT lines in Sydney has proved to be a disaster, now that the entire fleet on L1 had to be removed to fix design faults. Conversely, on the train network the inner city high density lines would be much better served by single-deck trains like the new Melbourne HCMTs rather than shoe-horning in the standardised double deck trains (that are great for the more suburban bits of the system)
Absolutely yes, you’ve made a really great comparison here. In the mainline rail system the capacity to have two series is there, probably not a good approach to the light rail
so you would propose that suburban double decker trains don't run into the city, and you would need to transfer to a single deck train? What would be a viable alternative?
By the way if you weren't aware, the newer tram models are perfectly compatible with the closed line, and the line will soon be reopened at limited frequencies with the new trams until the old ones are repaired. (Of course this wouldn't be possible the other way around, as the older trams don't have APS third rail, although theoretically they should still be able to be run on the majority of the route with pantograph if there were enough vehicles to spare.)
I'd say you don't need the entire design to be the exact same but you do want some details of the design to be the same, like track gauge, loading gauge, and door placement. Interoperability would still be a great thing to have, even if it's not for the sake of interlining. Here in NYC we have MANY subway yards and maintenance facilities; typically at least one per train service ("line" refers to the physical infrastructure here, so a train service typically runs over multiple lines). However, we only have two heavy overhaul shops: 207th St Yard and Coney Island Yard. Building a facility for heavy maintenance on every line would be tremendously expensive, and so would having to move incompatible trains to a maintenance facility by truck! Another minor point is compatibility of non-revenue equipment. Can your one tamper *safely* operate on both standard and Toronto gauge, or will you then need to purchase an additional tamper?
Having non-standard track gauges is an utter nightmare because trains are are rarely built where they are used.
Having a non-standard track gauge means that the trains have to be trucked to site - they can’t be delivered by rail.
That’s why track gauges WERE standardised in the first place. (And London had four different track gauges when it’s rail network was built as an example - it now has one).
Well of course it should have more than one train. Otherwise the headways would be hours or even days.
Now, multiple *types* of train. That's a more interesting question.
Probably. If this one train would fail, the whole system would be out of service ;)
Hmm, this is a good point!
Here in Santiago, the 3 rubber-tired lines (1, 2, and 5) are *technically* compatible, and some train models are shared between 2 or more of these lines.
However, since line 1's autopilot is CBTC (phase 3) and 2 and 5's is Alstom's SACEM, and since line 1 is already retrofitted with CBTC and most semaphores are only on if a train comes from another line to go to a depot IIRC, the only way you can see an 'NS-74' on Line 1 these days is if it's being transported to that line's depot.
Furthermore, trains that run in Line 1 are not capable of operating in lines 2 and 5 unless being driven manually (except the NS-93 which, AFAIK, has both systems hanging out there to have easy interchange between the 3 lines), and longer trains from that line don't fit into most stations in lines 2 and 5.
Sorry for the cluttered nature of the comment hahaha, great video!
Probably kind of like how Singapore's Circle & Downtown Lines have the same specifications e.g. 750V DC 3rd rail, 3-car ~70m long platforms & trainsets with 4 doors/side/car probably as the latter was built later but it's 1st stage was originally planned to be under the former instead. Then when the gov't changed its mind, it chose a different signalling system for the latter though (Siemens TrainGuard (formerly Invensys Sirius) instead of Alstom Urbalis 300) so the 2 lines' rolling stock now end up being incompatible unless manually driven, though the newer system has the advantage of faster deceleration & having an additional backup fixed-block system (besides CBTC). Should both lines do resignalling in the future I think that's an opportunity to switch them to the same signalling system (though the 2 lines are currently operated by different companies, which might need to be looked into too). I'd say though that the countries' even older North South & East West Lines might want to continue using a different signalling system though since those 2 lines run mostly above ground & thus need a more complicated system to take into account rain making tracks more slippery & reducing trains' deceleration, which the other 2 lines don't need since they're fully underground instead.
As a Train otaku, this channel is super fun. Thank you!
Thanks for watching!
Video title: "Should your metro system have more than one train?"
Video content: "Should your metro system have more than one *type of* train?"
Very different questions!
Well here in Warsaw we're currently provinng that you can run more than one high frequency fairly decently with just one depot. Now, line M2 will get it's dedicated depot eventually, but thanks to interoperability it could be opend in stages starting with the most needed AND most expensive to build central section, and expanding to the outer districts and to eventual new depot ever since.
Meanwhile Singapore's Downtown Line trains were serviced at a temporary siding in the underground & downtown Marina Bay station back when the line's Stage 1 had opened but not Stage 2 (2013-15), which connects Stage 1 to the line's eventual permanent _Gali Batu_ depot
Fun fact: our streetcars and subways use a different gauge because way back in the day the railway companies had so much pull that if we had made our streetcar tracks standard gauge they would have pushed for and most likely succeeded in running their freight trains on any set of tracks they wanted to! The city of Toronto was run by smart people back then who didn’t want hazardous and polluting freight trains running through the city streets. Makes sense to me
1.) The desire for competitive bidding to supply rolling stock an still be satisfied if companies compete to supply a compatible standard. Sydney's system has had multiple contractors supplying rolling stock for what was a unified standard. As for different companies *operating* the trains, I think the idea is questionable at best. Also competition is a wobbly concept between different lines, and not a reason in itself to operate incompatible technologies.
2.) Using basically compatible tech allows for flexibility in how you run a network as a city and its demographics change. A network should BE a network. I'm not saying you shouldn't modernise the trains or run different lengths etc to suit traffic, but have them basically interoperable. This is not the same as constantly interlining, it's just the ability to travel to different lines if emergencies, occasional special needs, or long-term changes require it.This includes simply moving train sets between lines/depots. RM Transit itself has praised Sydney's Metro for being compatible enough to allow this if need be.
3.) Running different gauges seems awful. It's bad enough in Australia for example with gauge changes at state borders. I suppose there might be a reason to (say) go to from narrow standard gauge for a new line, but eventually you'd want to convert all the lines to one gauge.
it’s not like older systems don’t also diversify. they often have many different standards. in london, there are various different systems that run in a metro/rapid transit way with different standards. the underground is split down the middle with some trains wider and some trains smaller, there’s the DLR, arguably even the London Overground in parts, especially between highbury & islington and surrey keys.
After seeing what's going on with wmata in dc, YES there should be fleets from different manufacturers, BUT I think all lines should be connected. They don't have to interline, but having a connection with every line in the system is beneficial especially for yard moves and fleet delivery. That's something Bart, Marta, and even WMATA does. Marta and WMATA have single track connections for it's services, while the entire Bart system is connected by the Oakland WYE.
I would add that although the trains on the various lines of the Beijing Subway are not interoperable(different electrification, number of cars, signaling, etc) they do all run on standard gauge and can mostly physically pass through other lines even if they can not do so under their own power. There are some connections between lines and to the national rail network at various points. So a new subway train can be towed by a locomotive from the manufacturer (such as CRRC Changchun) via the national rail network to one of the many connection points between the subway system and the national rail network. Then towed by a maintenance vehicle to the depot possibly passing through a few other lines. It does make delivery of new trains and returning of trains for overhaul a lot easier. I think there are definitely some benefits of maintaining some minimal inter compatibility (track and loading gauge) even on otherwise independent systems. Although this should be a "nice to have" feature and not preclude the use of a more appropriate train for the line.
@Zaydan Naufal Despite its name meaning "long spring" Changchun is in northeastern China and gets pretty cold during the winter. Then again it has a robust district heating system and power grid so I suppose it is better than staying in Texas :)
Here on the London Underground, all our trains use different equipment, but they are all set to fit on the same type of third/fourth rail system and track gauge.
There is some of what the Americans call “interlining” (eg Subsurface lines, Met/Piccadilly), but some lines’ trains can’t be taken off their lines (the Victoria for one)
@@samuell.foxton4177 Actually Picadilly isn't subsurface, but I get your point.
@@OffTheRailsUK I meant them as separate examples
i really love all your creative video ideas big g you leaving no stone unturned!! when im less broke i do the patrion you deserve it
Haha thanks Mike
For some cities i’ve always asked that question especially for systems i feel should have some expansion . Case in point : Charlotte CATS light rail . I’ve looked over several future expansion maps and see that there is a planned regional rail line but no service to the CLT Airport . I know a lot of people don’t want that but at least for AA employees such as myself who would like to use transit rather than my car it would help
"when it opens in the late 2020s" Love to see the optimism lol.
Standardization can even exist between ciities. The two largest cities in the south German state of Bavaria, Munich and Nuremberg, both started building metros in the late 1960ies. The lines were built to the same dimensions and used the same type of train. During the 1972 Olympics Munich borrowed Nuremberg trains!
In the intervening fifty years the two cities have rather drifted apart. (Munich is about twice the size of Nuremberg!) On two of its three lines Nuremberg uses short fully automatic driverless trains. All Munich trains are full length and carry an attendant in the front cab.
I think different standards for different line numbers / colors will be the future, since the international companies would like to have as many chances as possible to join bids even if they are not as big as the unified standard for the entire metro kind of project. At the same time, the standards will more or less unify to a few set specifications e.g. 750V or 1.5KV as you mentioned, usually standard gauge, narrow (2.5m), regular (2.8m-3m) or wide (3.2-3.3m) trains depending on requirements. Every international rolling stock company will make sure it's something that they can construct using their existing modular systems.
The adventage of a conected network is, that if the demanded routes change, for example a used to be housing district of the city becomes more and more a working-district, and there are a lot of interchanges between the lines, it is possible to change the network acording to demand.
If the lines are separated and of diferent standarts, the network is much harder to adapt to changing travel routes.
This also can be a factor, if there is a big (sport) stadium, that is located on a usually low density line, but if an event happens, trains can eigther be used on different lines then usual, or even some special lines using the infrastructure of different normal lines can be put in service for the duration of the event-transport.
As for the longer narrower vs shorter larger debate, the question is simple, it all depends on the width that is available to you for the stations. In normal conditions building a station with a 5 to 6 m wide platforms (on the side), it makes a very little difference if the trains are 2.40 m or 2.90 m large. It will require much less more concrete to pour in than elongating a station from 90 m to 120 m for example. That's why the Grand Paris Express went from 120 m long 2.45 m large trains like Paris metro standard to 108 m long 2.95 m large trains for the GPX project to save money while still having similar passenger capacity.
The debate is simple, larger shorter is the best most of the time for station size cost savings.
As for special railways in tight spaces, well, that's another problem.
As for the rolling stock, I'd say, it would be better to have similar rolling stock on all lines, (from the same maneufacturer even if different versions are running on different lines, the same maneufacturer can make the same trains in different lengths and configurations but using the same spare parts and technology, thus reducing the costs while preserving each line's caracteristics dependongs on the places they go through), again see the Grand Paris Express project, line 15 will have six car trains, lines 16 and 17 will have the same trains but three cars. (not Multiple Units on line 15, note).
Line 18 was designed on another level, using Paris standards for train width (less traffic and also partly overground route) with three car trains, different power supply (third rail rather than overhead rigid wire but still 1500 v, the trains will still have many similar caracteristics to their bigger counterparts, same kind of trains by the same maker (Alstom Metropolis style) so I guess that bogeys and electronics will be rather similar. Yet again, it is because Alstom produces lots of different trains based on the same framework all over the world, it is not a gadgetbahn properitary system.
Line 18 will be built to eventually accomodate a 4th car on its strains anyway if needed.
As for Paris metro, not all lines of the same running style are compatible thanks to signalling standards, at least not without modifying the signalling system of the trains. Older trains could run on all lines before signalling was changed for newer trains.
Back in the day during the expansion of the network, all of the famously known Sprague-Thompson rolling stocks, of all generations were all compatible between eachother, a car could be changed to another trainset no problem, air conduits and electrical systems were the same even if it meant that the newer ones in the 30s were designed as already obsolete on some aspects but the CMP wanted all cars to be exchangable from a train to another. Even old car from the very early days were incorporated into newer sets or pieces of thoses kept to be put on newer cars (old wooden doors for example), some lines were running with shorter cars in a longer car trainset at some point, quite artisanal in a way.
In the 50s, the young RATP tried short and long trains depending on timetable hours (short in off peak hours and long in rush hours), it was a logistical nightmare, the line on which they were tried (Northern part of what is line 13 now) wasn't designed for that kind of operation and as it caused more problems than anything else, the three car MA51 trains were soon running in Multiple unit configuration all the time (the cars were shorter than those of the other stocks so a six car train could fit into a 75 m long station where the usual stock is usually 5x15 m cars).
The trainsets were soon moved to the calmer line 10 and replaced on line 13 by brand new MF67s (later replaced by the solid hexagonal shaped MF77s). I saw the last MA51 on line 10 when I was a child and I likes those (smell and feeling close to a Sprague Thompson stock, technically outdated even at launch, doors not locked during transit between stations !!! Quite the experience. Also featuring a folding driving cab for Multiple Unit operation so the space could be reclaimed for passengers !
Also worth noting, all Paris lines have service tracks linking to another line mostly at big stations. Tire trains from line 11 can even take line 3 (after taking off their wheels for temporary ones, and most of the time, the trains are lifted through an elevator at the terminus workshop to be taken by road, car by car to Fontenay main tire train heavy workshop, fortunately, the situation will end with the extension of the line having its own main workshop (the former one must be run through and demolished to extend the tracks anyway, same happened on line 14 when it was extended to St Ouen, it got its own shop and liberated the space behind Olympiades to extend the line to Orly). But sometimes you can see a train going in maintenance service from a line to another, which is convenient when a dedicated workshop is being rebuilt, trains can go to another. And to be fair, the future privatizing of the network will make worshops dedicated to each line mandatory... but RATP will remain the infrastructure owner and all service junctions will remain so the infra maintenance trains from La Villette yard, the ONLY infrastructure maintenance facility in the whole network can have access to the whole network.
The GPX will have its own sets of worhops (one or two for line 15, a second at Orly for line 14, one for line 18 and one for both lines 16 and 17 taking the place of an old car factory. As for infrastructure maintenance, line 18 will have its own while lines 15, 16 and 17, operating on the same standard will have one, with a maintenance junction between 15 and the 16/17 tunnel at St Denis (again RATP will be the infrastructure owner here according to Grand Paris Law)
In general I'd argue wider trains = more passenger comfort. Especially on a metro, a long, narrow train can make it more difficult to use when crowded.
You make a ton of really good points especially with the Grand Paris Express, a big network with its own critical mass!
There's an elevator capable of lifting subway cars at Mairie des Lilas ??
Wow I never knew that !
When is it scheduled for demolition ?
Are there pictures somewhere ?
Wider trains means wider tunnels need to be dug though, which raises construction costs too. Am thinking if Singapore took this too far by building its fully underground Circle & Downtown Lines with the same loading gauge as older lines (3.2x3.7m cross section) but with platforms half the length (~70m for 3 cars instead of ~138m for 6 cars)
In Hong Kong, All urban lines are connected: Island, Tsuen Wan, Kwun Tong and Tseung Kwan O and due to lack of rolling stock and the original M-train stopped manufacturing, so MTR bought the new K-train for Tseung Kwan O Line, C train for extend service frequency. However, in early time of Tseung Kwan O line, due to the depot operation contractor did not know the maintenance of K-train, so that time, K-train swap to Kwun Tong Line until the contract end.
MTR is receiving the new train, nick name as Q-train to replace all M-Train.
I‘d call for yes to interoperability and intermaintainability where reasonable: track gauge, loading gauge or max axle load? Enable through-towing of at least single level cars with nearby heavy rail unless you have a darn good reason why you‘d never in a century or two would want to do that, you can always go and buy smaller and stuff things into voids, widening is a heck of a lot harder… floor height and door placement? Standardize that as far as possible to high floor and keep the doors at standard locations to have an easy time fitting platform screen doors that still enable interoperability, should that ever become desirable… wear items like seats, brake pads/shoes, pantograph strips, third rail shoes, …? Keep them as standardized as technology permits (yes, disc brakes need different parts than old shoe brakes, but there’s no reason buying fifteen different customer information screen types if you’re running the same software… as for power systems? If possible, try to enable everything to run everywhere (750DC overhead or third rail, the motors can’t tell, so if you have the space, just install a panto too. Obviously, a 25000AC train will have a harder time running on DC, but if you can standardize on digging the clearances necessary for an upgrade down the line, should it become necessary or cheaper.
But generally, you’ll want the tunnels too big and the trains too small in order to set you up for easy expansion somewhen down the line, and if you choose your standards wisely but not too rigid, it’s probably the best. As a rule of thumb, you’ll probably want the standards to be as rigid and widespread as it is easy to restandardize your network…
I believe Madrid's lines 1-5 and Ramal use narrow trains, with 6-12 being winder
I think you are correct!
more then.. one train?
NO!
ill run my 7 line 150 mile metro with ONE train car thank you very much
In Berlin we have 2 systems, the older one is small as a streetcar and the other more like a bus.
It makes everything complicated.
Historical reasons, when they started they underestimate the success and after WW one they stated building new lines with bigger size.
Answer there should be multiple types because it allows varied passenger experiences and if an older model breaks down then a new model train can be sent to take over the job of an older model.
Speaking of inter-connectivity: A former friend worked for the NY MTA and told me they have a maintenance train that can adapt to different gauges: it can leave the NY system, travel down the N.E. corridor to D.C. then go on that system because the distance between the wheels is "self" adjustable. He did not tell me if it can use overhead wires for power but it has height adjustable third rail shoes just like the new New Haven Division trains on Metro North (so they could go on the LIRR if needed).
I still think the Ontario line needs to be the same size trains as the rest of the subway network because this is meant to be a relief line so if you have trains that are too small it will just get overcrowded and not solve the overcrowding issues on line 1
The issue with this is that there is no logical end point to how much capacity you need. The Ontario Line route isn’t as developed as Yonge and likely won’t be for a LONG time and hence less capacity is needed while still serving a relief role
Not necessarily true. Capacity is dealt with in many ways, only one of them being the physical size of the train cars. Train length, frequency, number of doors on the train, platform screen doors, station sizing, number of stations etc all play a role in capacity.
@@RMTransit but the “relief line” has its own stops on route so it will probably still get overcrowded and then you factor in induced demand and boom overcrowded Ontario line
A way to fight the induced demand is with bigger trains and higher capacity
You was saying about new lines using similar trains etc one example was the Victoria line it was connected to the Piccadilly line so trains could reach Acton works which then was the central overhaul works for the underground day to day maintenance was done at Northumberland park Victoria line depot ,thats why they had to use similar dimension tube stock but to the latest design 1965 when the design was frozen for production the only thing was the 1967 stock was ATO and had to able to run on the conventional Piccadilly line aswell ,one idea was to have bigger dimensions and the trains were to be articulated to take advantage of bigger tunnels but as they had to reach Acton they couldn’t do this now the Victoria has all overhauls done at Northumberland park the latest 2009 can take advantage of the Victoria’s slightly larger tunnel dimensions so in effect the stock is stuck on the Victoria i believe they tried running a unit on the Piccadilly but stopped incase of damage a friend on LU told me ??,maybe we need a clean sheet of paper design for metros this I’ve spoken about when I done a paper on future of London area transportation when I was at college mind you that was in the eighties 😊,great channel
Most of the metro lines in Taipei can be connected(red,blue,orange and green) because they use the same railway signalling and identical trains.Therefore, the construction cost can be much lower because the entire network just need one depot for overhauls.
btw can u plz do a video for Taipei Metro?
NYC Subway is a prime example of different types of trains in one system. It’s caused a number of issues over the years.
Yes, if it suits the requirement better. No one system will fill all needs.
I think the question should be, is there a reason you’re diverting from your standard? I actually don’t think getting a cheaper packaged deal in the bidding stage is enough of a reason on its own. You’re going to have a much much longer timeframe running and maintaining your system then building it (hopefully). So, unless you’re building a very large and important line or are planning to build multiple lines to the new standard, compatibility is probably going to be the better longterm solution. It seems quite common for cities to have a bigger and a smaller standard, which seems reasonable. But if every line is different, that just seems like a maintenance nightmare.
Heck, even the new Malaysia east coast interstate rail (MRL) decide to build in 1435mm standard gauge (by China engineering CCCC) instead of 19 century British built meter gauge (KTM)
So whether or not a bunch of train systems is going to compatible with each others really goes like "it depends"
If the recently-completed Lao-China Railway (LCR) is standard gauge then it'd also have a break-of-gauge when it's extended southwards into Thailand, which like Malaysia uses metre gauge too. So if the plan to extend it all the way to Bangkok is going ahead a brand new rail line might've to be built in Thailand, raising costs, but on the plus side higher speeds would be supported
Yes.
You should have a standard sure bout that does not mean that you sound not operate legcsy lines. U6 shows that and you don't need to connect all lines U3 shows that. And you can modernize your standard if you build something new U5 shows that.
I think the answer is yes, it’s more practical from both a routing and a maintenance perspective to have trains that are compatible everywhere
Ideally, you have a system where everything _can_ run on everything else, but with trains that are tailored to a specific line.
i think some parameters should be fixed in a subway system: Track gauge, loading gauge, and possible platform length (doesn't need to be fully build but possible to lengthen every platform to a certain lenght ), this makes it possible to easily convert system if use patterns change or Extensions get build you can't tell today if people in a hundred years will have the same target locations, if your lines are completely different you could never adjust that, but if the basic dimensions are the same you can easily make these adjustments, of course when you are pretty big or have legacy systems it might be still a good idea to create multiple standart, but having completly different systems on each and every line doesn't, make sense
I always go for interchangeably. If I had my way the airtrain in New York York City that connects to John F. Kennedy Airport would have been interconnectable with the New York Subway for example.
Ohare has Metra and the cta. Both go downtown the cta has one station. The Metra station need stairs and evaluator and more trains. You have to take the tram to connect to the cta station. The Metra line goes close to Wisconsin boarder. The third rail can shock you
KAI commuter operate many different types of old Japanese trains, the most common being Tokyo Metro 6000 series and JR East 205 series. The railways here use 1067mm gauge and 1500 v catenary. MRT Jakarta also use the same standards
I agree with some previous comments that obtaining critical mass is benficial, but getting to critical mass doesn't require every line to have the same specifications, as you say. Even for short lines, you can get the benefits of standardization by grouping them to obtain critical mass. If you want to build a new line with a different technology, use that same technology for the next line, too.
The answer is yes. It’s total ridiculous having different standards. I can understand newer lines having newer trains and tech but the old lines should be able to be upgraded easily. And having different gauges…….wtf!!!!!! That’s a HUGE no no. Period. Here in the State of Victoria (Australia) the gauge is the same and although suburban trains are electric and regional trains diesel, we have servicing areas in regional areas and the diesel locos can pull the electric units to the service area if need be. And when the electric is extended we don’t have to rebuild tracks as they are the same gauge.
I think generally yes but Toronto is an exception because of the weird track gauge. It doesn't have to be a priority but its good to have.
It’s good for sure, but not at the expense of higher priorities
13:49 I think you meant 2022 cause it’s not 2021 anymore lol, great video though
Maybe he did this video in 2021.
Nah I am tired and forgot the year haha
@@RMTransit HA
lol you're certainly not the only one
Another big issue that you missed is evacuation, if a city/ country needs to be evacuated in a hurry the best bet is trains, if they cannot travel on tracks within the same city, then they definitely cannot use nationwide lines this could cause millions on deaths
Interestingly TTC subway Lines 1 and 2 look like they are compatible, indeed when Line 2 first opened, approx every second WB Line 2 train used lower Bay Station and went then SB down University Ave along Line 1. This soon ended, partially due to user confusion.
Today however Line 1 has a mostly upgraded signalling and control system and all its new Rocket Trains are compatible with that. Line 2 does not (yet) and thus Line 1 trains can (occasionally) operate on Line 2, however the converse not normally possible. Each Line does have its own MSF’s.
For sure, but L2 trains can be moved in a severely degraded signalling mode on L1
A entire workshop with the equipment for all maintenance (with the big reversions every few years) is cheaper then a little connection track?
This statement is very questionable.
The most systems which I know have a few workshops for daily maintenance, but only one big workshop for big revisions.
A little connection track isn’t cheap when it requires tunneling in many cases. And generally each line is going to ideally have a dedicated maintenance facility anyways on any fairly large system.
In London's case they decided that having to Low Loader trains for their 10 year overhaul was worth the extra space making the VIctoria Line trains slightly bigger gave them.
After watching all that, I'm more confused than ever as to why Mr Gadgetbahn would decide that certain incompatible systems are okay and not gadgetbahns, and to be welcomed after all.
In Berlin you see again how compatibility between the small- and big-loading gauge network is carried almost too far. After opening of the big loading gauge lines in the 1st half of 20th century recently again there are “narrow” cars operating on the “big” lines intermediately rebuilt with what Berlin people call “flower boards” to bridge the gap to the platforms - due not having enough cars (ordered in time) for the bigger loading gauge part of the network ^^
A couple of items,references to the IRT! The original concept of the subway equipment,was to be compatible with the existing Elevated lines! Those lines were 50 foot length,and 9 foot width,and built to,what is now,Boston,and Chicago standards! When the Dual Contracts,were put in,the then BRT,came up with the 60 foot,10foot standards,later copied by the IND,so that is what governed the subway lines in NYC! Note also that the BRT/BMT Elevated lines,were the IRT Elevated standards 50 foot,9foot,and actually compatible on third rail,add the Long Island Railroad through running(both steam,and electric),there was a rather large network in place prior to the building of the subway! London had similar issues,and because of Yerkes,Boston,and Chicago standards were used in the electrification,and exists today! This is a very capsulated history,and has omitted much material,and I apologize,but this is a subject of a multiple volume encyclopedia! Thank you for your attention! I 😇 💯💯💯💯💯💯💢💥💢💥💢💥💫
Here in Singapore, the newer lined are separate from the legacy lines. I think it’s a good thing since the probability of system disruption due to software malfunction is reduced. Even if it happens, it’s localised to the respective line.
I do however agree to having an international standard gauge. Took the London Tube… it feels small and narrow. And it’s really short for a tall person like me
In Delhi, there are literally different gauges in different lines lol. Almost all lines have a different rolling stock. And it works just fine. So not as big of a problem.
Interoperability is essential for cost effective expansion. Sorry. Having different standards or gauges is silly. It adds cost. And you can’t ignore that.
In İstanbul, some metro and tram lines are connected each other but nearly every line has different rolling stock. (except for M3 and M9 lines because M9 line was derived from the Olympics branch of the M3)
Imagine building in 2000 a LRT system which operates as metro, but at the same time being compatible (track gage and power) with your tram network from 1872 which only uses trams from the 1930s, mainly for tourists 🤣🤣
Oh yeah, that's Porto Metro for ya!
Theoretically you can use the metros (modern trams basically) for true tram service after their retirement from metro service though... 🤔🤔
bruh moment
Gadgetbahns are bad,
Standards are also bad,
lets build a train that is needlessly nonstandard in every way.
/s
Once you buy into this idea, it also makes sense to combine regional transit agencies whether they share common technology or not.
Boston was an early pioneer of this. All four lines use different technologies!
In Hong Kong, all lines are theoretically inter-compatible except the East Rail Link and Tuen Ma Line because the East Rail Link and Tuen Ma Line was built and operated by another company before 2008. Also, I say “theoretically” because the height of the trains and the tunnels are different which caused some gore and South Island Line don’t have a connection to the rest of the network.
San Diego MTS says an airport trolley is better than the APM option partly because the airport trolley has more brand recognition than an APM. In reality, people don't care if your train is called a trolley, or an APM, is red or purple, or is automated or not. They care about convenience and frequency. The airport trolley will come only every 15 minutes and eat up trunk line capacity and thus is inferior to an APM.
I've also heard the argument that an APM to the airport will make way finding more difficult vs. if the trolley was extended to the airport. Ahem, tell that to London with its many modes and excellent way finding.
Idk... The presence of people movers that are often a one of a kind systems does make me think more standardization is better. Man i hate expensive people movers built because cool rather than practical... (If you are wondering why the hate, in Pisa a perfectly fine railway connecting the trains station to the airport was first removed in favor of an express Busline, that it self was later removed to build an automated people mover that used the same corridor as the railways but at 10 times the cost and without service beyond late evening/early morning)
Well, it sort of makes sense in many cases since people movers need to self optimize and are almost always fully self contained! It’s a fun thought experiment
I mean SEPTA has 2 different fleets for our subways and NHSL, although I wouldn't use Philadelphia as a good example.
Athens metro opened in 2000. Line 1 has 4 types of trains, Lines 2&3 have 3.
The Boston pcc are one car. Though green line can do 2 streetcar but an operator is in the 2nd train
Very idealistic but realty is a lot harder to achieve with political appetite, operational rules and regulations to name a few. I just viewed his bus video yesterday and I think he fallen into a similar rabbit hole.
Great if you are rebuilding everything scratch but from an existing, it doesn’t work unless the government have great ambitions.
Even though Copenhagens S-train system seems to relativ on only 1 type of train it actually had 3 generations of trains running from 1997 to 2006.
The 3rd generation ran from 1986 to 2007 and the 2nd generation ran from sometimes in the 60'ies until 2007.
So it lasted longer than the troubled 3rd generation.
The 4th generation was introduced in 1997 and can be found in a 4 and 8 car version.
The 1st and 2nd generation train ran together from 1967 to 1978.
The 5th generation that most likely will be driverless will be tested on the Ring Line (Line F) in 5 years time.
So then we will have 2 types of trains running again.
The metro runs with 2 types of trains .
The 1st and 5th generation of the Ansaldo driverless train, but they do not share lines.
Mumbai Metropolitan Area has normal trains (long distance+local), metro and monorail...thats 4 different types of trains
There is talk about a Clinton Street subway to serve hs rail and separate cta line to connect the nearby station
Excellent. Thank you for getting me past that issue.
Not only does Tokyo have two subway networks, the four lines within the Toei network run on three different gauges!
Union Station Chicago used have the met canal stop.
Here in Milan every line has a completely different standard. I used to like that but now it's starting to seem like a bad idea.
I just love at 11:35 when we see the new trains and track being tested for the Eglinton Crosstown. In the place designed for advertising, is written, "Testing, testing, 1,2,3." Someone has a wonderful sense of humour.
Having said that, Toronto's main problem with non-standard technology is a provincial government that every so often has a snake-oil salesman sell them some new and dubious form of technology. The sales pitch is that it will be built here in Ontario, thereby founding an industry that will take over the transit world with its wondrous new technology. Thereby bringing massive money and jobs to Ontario.
Somehow, that never works out, the technology is a flop, and now we are stuck with the headache of running a line with non-standard technology. For example, the SRT "toy train" line. Is this still shut down from the snowstorm two weeks ago?
Or you could go for the Riyadh method and have several manufactures build the same train for you.
Here a question: is the Vancouver Skytrain a Gagetbahn?
OH more thane one type of train. I thought you meant more than 1 train period. This makes way more sense.
Connecting train station is important. You not have to walk a block or 2
13:50 reece, it's 2022...
HK MTR has two systems that has two overhaul yards Kowloon Bay and Shatin due to merger. And one control system. Only South Island island is isolated from other line. Formerly colonial govt wanted to save money.
And yet we are getting all the silly comments about why the Sydney West airport line is being built 25kvac rather than 1500vdc. Hopefully Reece will defend the difference.
London underground is divided into larger Sub surface and smaller deeper tube !Ines the sub surface all use the same type of train the S type either in 8 or 7 coach configuration ,gradually this system is moving to Automation but there will still be a driver present to start and stop the train , the Tube lines however each one has its own stock from various manufacturers ordered at different historical times and specifications , they date from the seventies up to the millennium ,a number of tube !Ines are semi automatic with an operative who stops and starts the train , one tube line is very bendy so has to use shorter carriages , train stock on the tube lines is not interchangeable with other lines ,so each line has its own exclusive stock , this is an historical thing as fleets for each have ordered separately at different times , this will be addressed as each line receives new stock starting with the Piccadilly line in 2025 all new stock will be compatible ! Problem is because tube stock is unique in the Metro world ,it is expensive to build and design !
Would using different train technology for rail lines make transfers between different lines more complicated ?
No it need not
@@RMTransit I remember you mentioned cross platform transfers as the easiest form of transfer between lines. Would such transfers be possible with trains that use different technology ?
I'm not from the bay area, but what criticism you gave seemed strangely centered on BART.
I think having multiple types of trains is useful because each type serves a different purpose. Also from a transit fan perspective the diversity is super fun :)
Indeed it’s a big bonus for fans :)
Do make a new video on Indian metro system or the RRTS
How comes any snippet of Canada I see in your video shows very bad roads?
Probably because roads in Toronto are rough haha, snow and salt!
Do you have a video on Baltimore Green line
Boston has overhead to airport because the subway was for streetcarz