At some point that becomes a diminishing return. I would much rather a new line be built with 24tph, than the same amount be spent on a signalling bump to give us 36tph rather than 24.
There is a big difference between regular trains and metro's when it comes to the aspects mentioned in the video, so it is kind of weird that no distinction was made between them.
Exactly. When I'm travelling 15 minutes, I'm not too bothered about comfort or getting a seat or what kind of luxuries there are - but on a 2 hour journey, those things matter a whole lot more.
@@stevieinselbyYes I totally agree. Just see the difference of comfort and configuration between underground trains and Elizabeth line trains in London.
100% the Toronto transit subway is a great example of commuter, super wide, plenty of seats and standing room, and no fixtures in the way to limit space. But I wouldn't want to take one from Paris to Strasbourg, or across the channel.
Because there's no sharp distinction. Look at the Elizabeth Line. Look at the Piccadilly Line. Look at Caltrain. Look at BART. Look at RER. It's all a continuum, and you're handicapping yourself if you compartmentalise and don't look up and down the hierarchy for inspiration. You'll notice that metro trains are starting to exchange ideas with elevators, too: we have multicompartment elevators, we have metros with platform doors. And indeed, the first time I took Eurostar I was struck by the (to me, I admit, depressing) aircraft vibe.
"Train Architect Designs the Perfect Commuter Train" - Except no train was designed in this video, just explained what's the thought behind the configurations choices of existing trains and also metros
@@chopsuey33 One of the things that really sets out Paris metro network is it's low distance between each stations. It's also pretty small (2.4 m wide) compared to most other, more modern metros, but not unique in that regard. Whereas NYC and London built their first lines based on the mainline railway, Paris metro was basically conceived as an underground tram/streetcar. None of it makes it unique, it's still just a metro.
@@blueghost3649 roads are not profitable (they suck tons of money out of taxes) so why should public transit expected to be? that is the hypocrisy all car brains have programmed into their default state for some reason
Subtle little thing there at the end, implying that "private" products like Heathrow Express are superior. In fact, most of the amenities on HeX are also on the Elisabeth Line-the HeX trains were even downgraded recently. There's no real point to riding HeX now. Also, the focus was on Metros, not commuter trains. Two different things.
Even with the best design, public transit still relies on disciplined and considerate passengers. In many Eastern cultures, trains are a significant part of daily life, and passenger etiquette is crucial for efficient travel to work and home. However, I was surprised to find that in North America, public transit behavior differs in many ways. It’s not just fare evasion; theft, begging, and even instances of people urinating on the train are not uncommon. Growing up, we were taught to view Westerners as disciplined, industrious, and creative. My first experience on a North American subway challenged those assumptions.
Most Westerners are disciplined, industrious and creative. However, Western countries are much more heterogenous and liberal, and thus have to deal with the bad apples. Wink, wink.
In many places outside North America, public transit is designed to be and seen as a viable option for everyone to get around to all the places they might want to go, and the systems are widely used across the socioeconomic spectrum. But in North America, unless your origin and destination are within an easy catchment area around the stations, public transit is rarely the most convenient option, and those who can afford to do so would sooner drive. That decreases the broad ridership that would help to enforce social norms, and leaves public transit as the option for 1) people who live right near it and for whom it's actually useful, and 2) people who have no other choice because the financial buy-in of being able to purchase and maintain a car is too high. Not to say there aren't some different cultural values in East and West surrounding public spaces and utilities - there definitely are, and I've seen it firsthand. But it's also important to realize that in many North American cities, you're not necessarily seeing a fully representative sample of the population due to the social and economic values of the place that built the transit.
It’s true, we have a few problems we need to address while improving public transit, like homelessness, behavioral health, etc. For what it’s worth, in my suburban area quite a few working people ride the buses and light rail and I rarely encounter unsavory characters. I think it’s important that we continue improving and expanding the transit network in the U.S. regardless. And hey, fewer people on the road to contend with for those who want to drive!
1:57 That is really not the reason why double-deckers slow down passenger flow... The simple fact that more people have to go through the same door does. You could add another cart but that makes the train longer and walking distances bigger. People also tend to wait around the entrance to the platform. Adding more doors speeds up passenger flow but adds complexity and takes space.
It's good for increasing capacity, and for cities like Philly where there's multiple major stops people get off at. Their use by NJ transit into nyc, where probably 90% of riders are ending up, is oddly helped by Penn Station's terrible platforms. Disboarding the train is seldom the bottleneck, the packed stairs and escalators tend to be instead.
Both are true. Stairs do slow down passenger flow. RER trains in Paris that have stairs at their doors like the RER C or D are clearly slower to disembark compared to the almost step-free RER A trains.
@@Joesolo13I’m not sure if it’s the best for Philly as double decker trains have significantly longer dwell times. Which can take a line from 24 to 15 tph when stations don’t have massive amounts of platforms. What Philly needs is frequency, not size
How about a double-decker platform? Fill on two levels, at least as fast as on a single level. There should still be a stairwell on the train, but just one, only used if one level is crowded so that people can spread out to the other level. Being able to move between levels on the train lets passengers look for seats on both levels.
@@QuarioQuario54321 by... switching to them? idk what exactly ur question is lol. if ppl are offered alternative means of transport that is well designed and competitive with existing options, ppl will migrate to it. look at seattle, which is undergoing a massive transit expansion, that's popular, and well used by commuters.
@@trainsandmore2319 Sooo what you are saying, "let's not attract people to trains but rather penalise people for using cars." . Following your logic, how about we stop all funding to highways altogether and then herd people it freight carriages cause we can afford so many more freight carriages. . Comfort doesn't matter here.
Great video! Just a slight correction: the R211 shown is actually an R211S, since it runs for the Staten Island Railway (SI), not the R211T which is found on other NYC Subway lines. The R211S, unfortunately, does not have the open gangway feature, which likely could be a result of cost savings, as this also highlights another aspect of railcar design in which different variants of the same type of railcar can be placed into service or purchased for certain lines based on a variety of factors such as engineering design constraints for some lines.
There really isn't a "perfect" design of train which will work on all systems. Each train type will have a different design purpose. Metro trains are designed for maximum capacity as they need to move a lot of people in a city quickly. These trains will have very high door density to get passengers on and off quickly, but some metros function more like suburban railways and others more like a grid network of lines. Commuter trains are designed for a mix of seating and standing passengers- depending on whether the trains are supposed to run inner or outer suburban services or even regional commuter services, the train design will be different. Inner suburban trains will have fewer seats, more doors and more standing room whilst outer and regional commuter trains will often have more seats. Intercity trains are designed with the expectation that every passenger will get a seat and prioritise passenger comfort so there will be very little standing room and lots of more spacious seats. Each system has its own design requirements which is why buying a standardised model of train and slapping it onto random train lines without consideration about what the train needs to do is generally a bad idea.
Here in the US and especially California we need to emphasize the difference in types. For example BART and LA metro both have 50 mile lines. DC’s Silver line is starting to get a bit long…
@@TysonIke BART really is more like a suburban rail system than a metro. It has speeds similar to Australian suburban rail systems with similar stop spacing. LA's stupidly long light rail lines are really emblematic of how bad Metrolink is (bad schedules, stops that are too far apart) I feel like part of the reason why metro and light rail systems are pushed so far beyond what they're supposed to be used for is because mainline rail isn't able to fill the gap of outer suburban journeys. Commuter rail systems across the US use loco hauled trains which makes them slow to accelerate and reach top speed, meaning stops need to be placed very far apart so that the trains maintain a good average speed. Most regional/suburban rail systems across the world use multiple unit trains which accelerate much faster, many of which are able to hit 60mph in under a minute with the fastest doing so in under 30 seconds with 80mph in 50 seconds (metro levels of acceleration but with a much higher top speed than a metro). This means that stations can be placed closer together whilst still maintaining high average speeds. This means that suburban rail systems across the world are able to maintain speeds fast enough to complement a metro whilst still providing good coverage in outer suburban areas, hence the need for very long metro lines is alleviated. So in most other countries, rather than a 50 mile metro or light rail, a suburban rail system would be built.
I think this is why it’s hard to get a system that tries toto combine both to be designed well. For example the Elizabeth line trains. In my opinion they are designed well but can’t ActiveCit the comfort needed for a full journey and probably aren’t as efficient as a tube train, if it comes to passenger flow, when working through central London.
I think maximizing the people standing in the middle 3 carriages or even the middle 5 would be best because that is typically where people embark the quickest and leave for the station's exit. The following 2 can be those seated along the side facing in and the ends of the train passengers facing each other.
@@QuarioQuario54321 that isn't as common as the usual layout, and also transit trains are designed in a way that all cars are mostly standing room no matter what, especially on transit systems that require extreme capacity to even keep up with high ridership and not becoming too crowded that required pushers to even fit in
This is practically impossible to optimally design for as regular commuters will often get on at the spot they're going to be getting off based on where the exits are at their destination. Everyone is going somewhere different, so it's not really something you can predict and design around. I guess the Waterloo and City line is the one outlier for this given it only has the two stations lol. You can try to design around it with newer stations with more exits better spaced along the platform. The Elizabeth Line stations in central are more like this given they're built brand new. Not really something you can quickly or cheaply retrofit on older parts of the networks.
Great video! On many metros, trams and regional trains I've been on it's always interesting to check out the seating, door and overall car layout. You can understand a lot about the type of passengers they are purposed for
- one huge door per car that deploys like a wing, with a nice and safe sliding movement upward then to the side, with markings on the platform to organize and secure the whole thing ? with millimeter perfect level boarding and seats on the opposite side only (and can even throw in some emergency doors in that huge door, for those more concerned about security)
The PPHPD also depends on the average speed of a train. This in turn depends on how often it has to stop. If a train only stopped half of the time, the average speed would increase significantly. In Santiago de Chile, this is successfully practiced during rush hour: a line has trains with different modes: Mode A: stops at stops 1,2,4,5,7... Mode B: stops at stops 1,3,4,6,7... At stops 1, 4 and 7... (i.e. 1+3n with n=1,2,3...) the trains stop in BOTH modes so that people can switch from mode A to B. This reduces the number of stops by 1/3 because each mode stops at 2 out of 3 stops. With a mode C it would be even more economical: Mode A: 1, 2, 5, 6, 9... Mode B: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9... Mode C: 1, 4, 5, 8, 9... This reduces the number of stops by 50% because each train only stops at 2 of 4 stations (but the probability of having to change trains increases). By increasing the average speed, crossing a large city from, for example, far in the south to far in the north is drastically reduced.
This is all good stuff but the most important thing to improve capacity will always be 1. Building more lines, 2. Better signalling to allow more trains to run on existing lines, 3. Better infrastructure to allow longer trains and then 4. More high capacity train design, in that order
I think longer trains aren’t always the solution for a metro, there’s a limit. Because I imagine longer trains might lengthen the dwell time due to many more doors so more chance of passenger obstruction. Maybe passengers want to enter in a certain carriage to which they may linger on the platform for more time as well. I find longer trains suit commuter or intercity trains more compared to a metro in which dwell time matters more.
@@JT29501I’ve heard more lanes in highways just lead to more congestion although obviously it’s not as simple as that and not that it doesn’t encourage public transport use which leads to more traffic.
@@Peter-mj6lz It's not really significant enough. Let's say you have 8 car trains, and you want to upgrade to 10 car trains (as happened near me quite recently). You add 2 extra carriages, so essentially one "extra" train in 4. If you are already running with good signalling at metro type frequencies, it might be impossible to add 1 new train for extra 4. However it's doubtful that any extra dwell time (and theoretically there really shouldn't be much, as long as you have plenty of doors and good station layouts that distribute passengers reasonably evenly) will cost as much as that 1 train in 4. I certainly haven't noticed any extra dwell time from the recent upgrades near me. And the Elizabeth Line, also near me (I'm lucky) has very very long trains and generally gets unloaded and loaded very quickly indeed. However, I would add I did put it third for a reason - if there is still space to improve frequencies, that is definitely preferable, although potentially more expensive. And obviously a whole new line will provide the most extra capacity of anything, but is also the most expensive.
@@machinismus We used to. Our public transit was the envy of the world back in the early 20th century. Then it all got bought up by auto and tire manufacturers and systemically destroyed. That's a gross oversimplification, of course, but it's essentially what happened.
Flip-up seats that flip out of the way when it's busy do not account for how trains usually get busy, which is that a few people will get on at each station over the course of many stations until the train is full & standing. About halfway through, when the train is somewhat busy, somebody will go & sit in the flip-up seats, & they will usually still be there when the train is packed. I don't approve of spaces for bicycles that contain flip-up seats for when there isn't a bike: three seated passengers aren't going to stand to make room for 1 passenger with a bike.
As a New York City resident, I would opt-in removing more seats for standing room. Most New Yorkers are capable of standing, it really depends on social expectations on allowing elderly/disabled to take a seat (I also believe in making little kids stand as well). We would also implement this type of train on a shorter route that goes through very populated neighborhoods in rush hour, such as the 7 train that goes through Queens to Manhattan.
When my country removes seats from trains, our gov't euphemistically says that they now have "more space". Maybe we can also widen the doors & platform screen doors. Some trains in Tokyo's Metro are 1.8m wide! (wide enough for 4 people to walk through)
In Washington DC, seats on the Metro are 19"/48cm wide (on MetroBus, they are 18"/46cm) and there are rows of 2+2 seating. Apparently no one that designs trains for Americans has noticed that the average American no longer fits in this tight space, especially while wearing winter clothes. Since passengers don't want to be literally rubbing against someone else, adjacent seats are often empty even when there are standing passengers, a situation made worse when the seated passenger puts their bag next to them. I believe it would be better to have 2+1 seating with each seat 24"/60cm wide as I don't believe that the the actual capacity loss really would be 25%. To get people out of cars, the alternative has to be comfortable and no car has seats so close together.
Increasing the number of trains during peak hours, coupled with better planning and design, could significantly improve public transportation. Trains should offer more seating and standing options, as well as designated spaces for bicycles, wheelchairs, and baby strollers. This would ensure a more efficient, inclusive, and comfortable travel experience for all passengers.
Someday, American rail passengers will learn that waiting for departing passengers to exit the train is far more efficient than trying to push exiting passengers backwards. That slows up rail service a lot in Los Angeles.
I reserved my opinion on the door and double decker rationality. In countries like India, double decker trains make it more economical with 4 doors. Or 3 wider doors. In india , it is also about sitting as majority is designed for standing because the aim is to move from point A to point B as a higher priority than designing sitting exclusive which is most common design in short distance travel with stations at a gap of 1.5km to 2 km average. India cannot afford to have too many cars if it wants to lower its AQI and traffic. So trains with broader doors and still solve problems. I as a designer would not consider about person coming from top deck to lower deck for door, as I would expect people with long journey to be on top deck and people with short journey in lower decks usually. Developing countries can use such wisdom to solve many problems.
I like trains, and all these design features sound awesome. However, the issue is that as trains get more bespoke, they get more expensive. See CalTrain’s new electric KISS trains
Ha! That Heathrow Express train you pay through the nose for is just 5-10 minutes faster than the Elizabeth line. Unless you overslept it's not at all worth the money (not to mention, you may spend 10 minutes in Paddington getting onto the Heathrow Express whereas the Elizabeth line is more easily accessible in other stations, and it runs more frequently).
I was thinking the same lol. It shows just how good the Elizabeth Line actually is that it competes that closely with a dedicated service. Also I like how people seem to have forgotten the "we don't need this" and "it's too expensive and taking too long" complaints once it actually opened lol.
I don't know why we don't have double-decker platforms. I don't know why we don't use both sides of the carriage, with an entry side and an exit side. I don't know why we don't see intermodal cross platform transfers. Why, in short, are vehicle architecture and station architecture treated as unrelated?
Most networks were built by competing companies in much of the world. Lots even used different track gauge so their competitors couldn't make use of their infrastructure. You'd have to agree on a set of standards between all operators making use of the tracks, then essentially rebuild half of it to meet them all. The cost and disruption would immense.
As an American, here's a great train design: -Clean -I don't get stabbed on the platform -Actually sticks to the schedule -Goes places I want to go at hours I want to go there Once we can hit these BASICS maybe we can talk about the actual car design. Also, WSJ you don't care about commuter trains. No American big business does. There's too much kickback money from the oil and car companies. This video is a joke.
Honolulu has a brand new HART System. It only goes from Kapolei to Aloha Stadium for now, the rest of the line will go all the way into Honolulu, but only stops at Ala Moana Blvd. it should to all the way to Waikiki to help visitors go to and from HNL and back. UH Manoa would be ideal, but of course funding and budget is always the issue in Hawaii with limited resources. Someone needs to come to Hawaii and help out a growing population on the Leeward side of Oahu. Honolulu can be a world class city, if the infrastructure is up to par with the rest of the US.
I live in a HOT country (Australia) and I am increasingly angered by companies like Alstom and Bombardier, pushing their pretty trains designed for cooler climates onto us. Our trains used to have poor or no air conditioning, but very good ventilation, and sun protection. Now they are all fully sealed and have huge windows, meaning all the passengers get baked. Also people tend to sweat on hot days so having sealed cars, means the smell is sickening.
Alstom isn’t your government. They present a bid to your government and then the that gov decides to award the bid to based off or cost or other reasons. Blame your government that procured the trains not Alstom. If your government really wanted to they could have asked Alstom to design the trains to meet the climate conditions that exist in your city.
@@cboy0394 Trust me dude, I DO blame the government. This video though is about the train designers and not the government. You must also consider that the manufacturers always offer cookie cutter, off the shelf designs with a "One Size Fits All" attitude. All the various trains and trams we have are are just the same as the ones in northern Europe, and the only real choice we are given is the interior seating arrangement. Yes we could get a custom job done, but have you ever priced a 12 seat Mini Cooper? Customization costs big bucks whereas having trains already designed for hot climates only adds a small amount. As you said, "They present a bid to your government..." but all the companies present their designs on a Take It Or Leave It basis.
I feel you. Indonesia also had this problem with old Japanese trains. Thankfully, the train company took the matter into their own hands and retrofitted the trains with blasting ACs. Now, sometimes it gets too cold on the train. Especially when it is empty late at night.
Speak for yourself. I live in a COOL part of Australia where snow settles in winter. Just because you live somewhere with an intolerable climate like Queensland, does not mean you speak for the entire continent.
It is your government's fault but Siemens kind of did the same thing to Amtrak. Siemens essentially refused to design a more comfortable seat and just stuck in their off the shelf European commuter rail seats. Even though the trains they are designing are aften used for 5 hour journeys.
A factor in this that cannot be controlled is station design. If the stairs or enterance to a station is at one end of a platform, naturally this area is crowded and those carriges are busier no matter how well you design the train. A lot of the time Carriage #1 may be have 30% empty seats whilst carrige five has standing room only. The hong kong method is a good step towards solving this but people do not always read it, or even if they do, they do not care! Humans are the limiting factor in the modern era.
This is where modern station designs (should) do better given the decades of data we have that show how people move around these networks. If you look at some of the Elizabeth Line stations under central London you'll see the entrances and exists are more evenly spaced along the platform and there are more of them, with much larger spaces between. The stations are truly massive, especially if you're used to the old deep level stations built 100+ years ago when they were still working all of this stuff out (because they were the first to do it).
They missed one very important, yet glaring piece to this conundrum. All trains, whether train, tube, tram, metro, subway, etc have doors on both sides of the carriage, yet you can only enter or exit on one side. On most, at Canary Wharf station in London, you can enter/exit the tube on both sides, essentially crossing eastbound and westbound journeys without having to navigate stairs. This is rare. If a whole line or system, had both left and right doors open at every station, this should make it easier and faster. You could even play around with it. Have customers enter on the right and exit on the left. Sometimes humans do amazing things, others times you humans are as dumb as door nails! Actually, its not entirely the fault of humans, since most stations are old, and to include a new platform is most times difficult.
Realistically the train layout depends on the capacity target of the train. In a commuter train you tend to see transversal seating simply because you sacrifice some standing capacity in exchange for extra comfort in longer journeys. In metros, you generally have longitudinal because most people aren't staying for a long while. From experience, these come given by transit authorities. Oh and 4:44 is just false. If a train is cramped, it's because the system lacks capacity. There is only so much capacity you can squeeze from design decisions within the carriages themselves. The actual issue most likely lies in frequency which can be improved (resignalling to a CBTC system being a solution), or trains being too short (lengthening platforms being the solution). If you still lack capacity, sorry mate you're gonna have to build a new line paralleling the overcrowded existing one, like Paris did with 14 or London with the Lizzy.
The problem is the population. There should be more ways to get from one place to another and also more train or buses. Also everything should keep near (not far), so people could have the option to go where they need by walking or bicycle. But cities need to be made more for the pedestrian than for cars. This is my opinion living in Monterrey, Mexico, one of the most populated cities in Mexico.
This is why NYCT 1 Train is better for commuters than the 4/5, pole is “20 centimeters” off center thereby keeping the doorway from being blocked by standing passengers. 4/5 is a total pain to exit/enter at express stops Union Sq./14th and GCT
Does someone at the Journal realize they just compared cruise ships on rails to subway trains? While it is nice the see the overall design process (most of this I already knew I took classes for this in college, but always nice to see again), that's not a fair comparison to crowd control. Especially when one of those trains has a ticket price of over a thousand dollars per person.
@@TalesOfWar Yes, a lot of its is, but in their intro, several of the trains they shows were all high end luxury trains, some of which cost over $5000 to get on.
The best architecture is the Japanese type. It works from 1963 and the 103 series. one level, 3/4 doors per side, 20m long, 2.95m wide, but curved at 3.05m wide, longitudinal seats, no strollers, no bikes and other bulky objects, reserved places for people with difficulties at the end of the cars, multiple support bars, long trainsets and medium to high frequency. Trains that are too short risk limiting capacity and appeal!! Who wants to get on trains that are too crowded as soon as the line opens!!! They manage to have lines with 150% load without too many problems, Japanese discipline also has a big part in this success. Otherwise nice French accent..
I thought this was going to be about taking advantage of the stops to have some sort of revenue from real state owned and rented by the subway-train operators. Also, not exaggerating when building the train platforms, making it bigger than it needs to be.
Same on the London Underground. The Bakerloo and Piccadilly lines have rolling stock from 1972 and 1975 respectively. They're currently replacing the Piccadilly stock with some brand new ones but central government cut their funding for them a couple of years ago so they're going to be delayed. They were supposed to be replaced on both lines at the same time but that isn't happening any more. They've been doing some refurbishments on the Bakerloo stock as a stop gap.
So why in Paris does the RER B train which runs between CDG Airport and Orly Airport have no space for luggage? Because it serves more local ipassengers in central Paris. Time for a dedicated train/s.
There are spaces for luggage on RER B trains. But you're right, there will be a new dedicated train non-stop from Paris Gare de l'Est station, but also metro line 17. Also, RER B will receive new trains in the coming years with a lot more room. They'll be mostly double-decker, alternating single and double deck cars, larger internal platforms, etc.
That's the same complaint for the Elizabeth Line in London, though mostly for the western stretch from Paddington to Heathrow. The majority of the line is a commuter line, which is why they don't have toilets which is another complaint.
@@TalesOfWar RER B is passing the million daily passengers and keeps growing, still with older trains. So the level of overcrowding is much more felt than on the Elizabeth line. Though I'm guessing some are starting to regret that the Lizzie line was not prepared for double-decker trains, especially as it's London's RER A or B counterpart and was destined for massive crowds.
Image IF America had cross country train rides where youd basically stay in your own room and then go eat in the dining room in the morning, stuff like that. I would pay sooo much moeny to do that
Tokyo Metro shares surge in trading debut: on.wsj.com/4fm51ND
MORE TRAINS
now this is what the people want to see!
That would be the ideal solution but
MORE TRAINS
At some point that becomes a diminishing return. I would much rather a new line be built with 24tph, than the same amount be spent on a signalling bump to give us 36tph rather than 24.
MORE TRAINZ
There is a big difference between regular trains and metro's when it comes to the aspects mentioned in the video, so it is kind of weird that no distinction was made between them.
Exactly. When I'm travelling 15 minutes, I'm not too bothered about comfort or getting a seat or what kind of luxuries there are - but on a 2 hour journey, those things matter a whole lot more.
@@stevieinselbyYes I totally agree. Just see the difference of comfort and configuration between underground trains and Elizabeth line trains in London.
100% the Toronto transit subway is a great example of commuter, super wide, plenty of seats and standing room, and no fixtures in the way to limit space.
But I wouldn't want to take one from Paris to Strasbourg, or across the channel.
Because there's no sharp distinction. Look at the Elizabeth Line. Look at the Piccadilly Line. Look at Caltrain. Look at BART. Look at RER. It's all a continuum, and you're handicapping yourself if you compartmentalise and don't look up and down the hierarchy for inspiration. You'll notice that metro trains are starting to exchange ideas with elevators, too: we have multicompartment elevators, we have metros with platform doors. And indeed, the first time I took Eurostar I was struck by the (to me, I admit, depressing) aircraft vibe.
@@dittilio Though Paris to Strasbourg is only 1h45, which can be as long as a long commute in a large city on a very long metro or commuter line.
"Train Architect Designs the Perfect Commuter Train" - Except no train was designed in this video, just explained what's the thought behind the configurations choices of existing trains and also metros
It's rarer these days to find a video that doesn't have clickbait now.
Well it is the WSJ, Jeff probably told them to remove it.
@@flyingpanhandle Jeff owns WaPo, not the WSJ.
Thanks for saving me the 7 monites
@@oleunis7921 that's why we all use the DeArrow extension with community corrected titles and thumbnails
WSJ interviews someone from Alstom (a French company), but they manage to pull off the feat of never mentioning French metros.
French metros are quite good, but also unique in the world, there haven’t been a new generation Paris metro for almost 20 years
@@MrJimheerenhow is Paris metro unique ?
to add to the complexity in a factory in Derby UK
@@MrJimheerenthat is not true, there were new metros in 2021 or 2022 idk (look up MP14)
@@chopsuey33 One of the things that really sets out Paris metro network is it's low distance between each stations. It's also pretty small (2.4 m wide) compared to most other, more modern metros, but not unique in that regard. Whereas NYC and London built their first lines based on the mainline railway, Paris metro was basically conceived as an underground tram/streetcar.
None of it makes it unique, it's still just a metro.
Didn't miss a single opportunity to say "paying passenger" instead of just passenger
Yeah, as if free public transit systems didn't have this incentive too lol
This is the “WallStreet” Journal Sherlock. No one is watching this unless their default operating mode is profit seeking.
The original "Greed is good."
What’s wrong with that
@@blueghost3649 roads are not profitable (they suck tons of money out of taxes) so why should public transit expected to be? that is the hypocrisy all car brains have programmed into their default state for some reason
Subtle little thing there at the end, implying that "private" products like Heathrow Express are superior. In fact, most of the amenities on HeX are also on the Elisabeth Line-the HeX trains were even downgraded recently. There's no real point to riding HeX now.
Also, the focus was on Metros, not commuter trains. Two different things.
Displaying the amount of people per car is standard for all trains in Switzerland. This really helps picking the right train, time, and waggon
Even with the best design, public transit still relies on disciplined and considerate passengers. In many Eastern cultures, trains are a significant part of daily life, and passenger etiquette is crucial for efficient travel to work and home. However, I was surprised to find that in North America, public transit behavior differs in many ways. It’s not just fare evasion; theft, begging, and even instances of people urinating on the train are not uncommon. Growing up, we were taught to view Westerners as disciplined, industrious, and creative. My first experience on a North American subway challenged those assumptions.
Most Westerners are disciplined, industrious and creative. However, Western countries are much more heterogenous and liberal, and thus have to deal with the bad apples. Wink, wink.
In many places outside North America, public transit is designed to be and seen as a viable option for everyone to get around to all the places they might want to go, and the systems are widely used across the socioeconomic spectrum. But in North America, unless your origin and destination are within an easy catchment area around the stations, public transit is rarely the most convenient option, and those who can afford to do so would sooner drive. That decreases the broad ridership that would help to enforce social norms, and leaves public transit as the option for 1) people who live right near it and for whom it's actually useful, and 2) people who have no other choice because the financial buy-in of being able to purchase and maintain a car is too high.
Not to say there aren't some different cultural values in East and West surrounding public spaces and utilities - there definitely are, and I've seen it firsthand. But it's also important to realize that in many North American cities, you're not necessarily seeing a fully representative sample of the population due to the social and economic values of the place that built the transit.
"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation." - Gustavo Petro
In North America, trains are viewed as welfare for the poor and mentally ill.
In Asia, even rich people ride subways.
It’s true, we have a few problems we need to address while improving public transit, like homelessness, behavioral health, etc. For what it’s worth, in my suburban area quite a few working people ride the buses and light rail and I rarely encounter unsavory characters. I think it’s important that we continue improving and expanding the transit network in the U.S. regardless. And hey, fewer people on the road to contend with for those who want to drive!
1:57 That is really not the reason why double-deckers slow down passenger flow... The simple fact that more people have to go through the same door does. You could add another cart but that makes the train longer and walking distances bigger. People also tend to wait around the entrance to the platform. Adding more doors speeds up passenger flow but adds complexity and takes space.
And what if that entrance is in many places
It's good for increasing capacity, and for cities like Philly where there's multiple major stops people get off at. Their use by NJ transit into nyc, where probably 90% of riders are ending up, is oddly helped by Penn Station's terrible platforms. Disboarding the train is seldom the bottleneck, the packed stairs and escalators tend to be instead.
Both are true. Stairs do slow down passenger flow. RER trains in Paris that have stairs at their doors like the RER C or D are clearly slower to disembark compared to the almost step-free RER A trains.
@@Joesolo13I’m not sure if it’s the best for Philly as double decker trains have significantly longer dwell times. Which can take a line from 24 to 15 tph when stations don’t have massive amounts of platforms. What Philly needs is frequency, not size
How about a double-decker platform? Fill on two levels, at least as fast as on a single level.
There should still be a stairwell on the train, but just one, only used if one level is crowded so that people can spread out to the other level. Being able to move between levels on the train lets passengers look for seats on both levels.
America.
BUILD MORE Train INFRASTRUCTURE
Use a bit of that highway budget...
And how will people switch to the trains?
Defund the local state DOTs by half and redirect that share of the funding to public transit agencies in the DOTs' respective states.
@@QuarioQuario54321 by... switching to them? idk what exactly ur question is lol. if ppl are offered alternative means of transport that is well designed and competitive with existing options, ppl will migrate to it. look at seattle, which is undergoing a massive transit expansion, that's popular, and well used by commuters.
a small bit of the highway budget is not enough to build train infrastructure
@@trainsandmore2319 Sooo what you are saying, "let's not attract people to trains but rather penalise people for using cars."
.
Following your logic, how about we stop all funding to highways altogether and then herd people it freight carriages cause we can afford so many more freight carriages.
.
Comfort doesn't matter here.
Misleading headline: Wasted time waiting for a designer reveal that never happened. Instead the video is a review of cabin interiors around the world.
James May thoroughly enjoyed this
james may reference, how lovely to see
Great video! Just a slight correction: the R211 shown is actually an R211S, since it runs for the Staten Island Railway (SI), not the R211T which is found on other NYC Subway lines. The R211S, unfortunately, does not have the open gangway feature, which likely could be a result of cost savings, as this also highlights another aspect of railcar design in which different variants of the same type of railcar can be placed into service or purchased for certain lines based on a variety of factors such as engineering design constraints for some lines.
There really isn't a "perfect" design of train which will work on all systems. Each train type will have a different design purpose.
Metro trains are designed for maximum capacity as they need to move a lot of people in a city quickly. These trains will have very high door density to get passengers on and off quickly, but some metros function more like suburban railways and others more like a grid network of lines.
Commuter trains are designed for a mix of seating and standing passengers- depending on whether the trains are supposed to run inner or outer suburban services or even regional commuter services, the train design will be different. Inner suburban trains will have fewer seats, more doors and more standing room whilst outer and regional commuter trains will often have more seats.
Intercity trains are designed with the expectation that every passenger will get a seat and prioritise passenger comfort so there will be very little standing room and lots of more spacious seats.
Each system has its own design requirements which is why buying a standardised model of train and slapping it onto random train lines without consideration about what the train needs to do is generally a bad idea.
Here in the US and especially California we need to emphasize the difference in types. For example BART and LA metro both have 50 mile lines. DC’s Silver line is starting to get a bit long…
@@TysonIke BART really is more like a suburban rail system than a metro. It has speeds similar to Australian suburban rail systems with similar stop spacing. LA's stupidly long light rail lines are really emblematic of how bad Metrolink is (bad schedules, stops that are too far apart)
I feel like part of the reason why metro and light rail systems are pushed so far beyond what they're supposed to be used for is because mainline rail isn't able to fill the gap of outer suburban journeys.
Commuter rail systems across the US use loco hauled trains which makes them slow to accelerate and reach top speed, meaning stops need to be placed very far apart so that the trains maintain a good average speed.
Most regional/suburban rail systems across the world use multiple unit trains which accelerate much faster, many of which are able to hit 60mph in under a minute with the fastest doing so in under 30 seconds with 80mph in 50 seconds (metro levels of acceleration but with a much higher top speed than a metro). This means that stations can be placed closer together whilst still maintaining high average speeds. This means that suburban rail systems across the world are able to maintain speeds fast enough to complement a metro whilst still providing good coverage in outer suburban areas, hence the need for very long metro lines is alleviated.
So in most other countries, rather than a 50 mile metro or light rail, a suburban rail system would be built.
I think this is why it’s hard to get a system that tries toto combine both to be designed well. For example the Elizabeth line trains. In my opinion they are designed well but can’t ActiveCit the comfort needed for a full journey and probably aren’t as efficient as a tube train, if it comes to passenger flow, when working through central London.
@@williamhuang8309BART I'd the closest Amercia gets to have S-Bhan style systems besides from Septa and DC Metro.
Impressive design, making commutes more comfortable! 🚄
Flip-up chairs seem brilliant to me!
I think maximizing the people standing in the middle 3 carriages or even the middle 5 would be best because that is typically where people embark the quickest and leave for the station's exit. The following 2 can be those seated along the side facing in and the ends of the train passengers facing each other.
What about when the entrance is at the end of the platform?
@@QuarioQuario54321 that isn't as common as the usual layout, and also transit trains are designed in a way that all cars are mostly standing room no matter what, especially on transit systems that require extreme capacity to even keep up with high ridership and not becoming too crowded that required pushers to even fit in
This is practically impossible to optimally design for as regular commuters will often get on at the spot they're going to be getting off based on where the exits are at their destination. Everyone is going somewhere different, so it's not really something you can predict and design around. I guess the Waterloo and City line is the one outlier for this given it only has the two stations lol. You can try to design around it with newer stations with more exits better spaced along the platform. The Elizabeth Line stations in central are more like this given they're built brand new. Not really something you can quickly or cheaply retrofit on older parts of the networks.
There is a designation called Train Architect. That is what hooked me
I remember once the train was so full that people climbed onto the luggage space above the seats and took a nap 🤣🤣
Great video! On many metros, trams and regional trains I've been on it's always interesting to check out the seating, door and overall car layout. You can understand a lot about the type of passengers they are purposed for
- one huge door per car that deploys like a wing, with a nice and safe sliding movement upward then to the side, with markings on the platform to organize and secure the whole thing ? with millimeter perfect level boarding and seats on the opposite side only (and can even throw in some emergency doors in that huge door, for those more concerned about security)
My dad works as a security engineer for Alstom :D he and his team calculate the risks for certain events and how the trains should react then
The PPHPD also depends on the average speed of a train. This in turn depends on how often it has to stop. If a train only stopped half of the time, the average speed would increase significantly. In Santiago de Chile, this is successfully practiced during rush hour: a line has trains with different modes:
Mode A: stops at stops 1,2,4,5,7...
Mode B: stops at stops 1,3,4,6,7...
At stops 1, 4 and 7... (i.e. 1+3n with n=1,2,3...) the trains stop in BOTH modes so that people can switch from mode A to B.
This reduces the number of stops by 1/3 because each mode stops at 2 out of 3 stops. With a mode C it would be even more economical:
Mode A: 1, 2, 5, 6, 9...
Mode B: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9...
Mode C: 1, 4, 5, 8, 9...
This reduces the number of stops by 50% because each train only stops at 2 of 4 stations (but the probability of having to change trains increases).
By increasing the average speed, crossing a large city from, for example, far in the south to far in the north is drastically reduced.
Wasn't expecting anything more from an architect
This is all good stuff but the most important thing to improve capacity will always be 1. Building more lines, 2. Better signalling to allow more trains to run on existing lines, 3. Better infrastructure to allow longer trains and then 4. More high capacity train design, in that order
Exactly the same thing could be said for highways.
@@markplain2555 Sorry, what? Signalling? Longer trains? That would be a pretty weird highway..
I think longer trains aren’t always the solution for a metro, there’s a limit. Because I imagine longer trains might lengthen the dwell time due to many more doors so more chance of passenger obstruction. Maybe passengers want to enter in a certain carriage to which they may linger on the platform for more time as well.
I find longer trains suit commuter or intercity trains more compared to a metro in which dwell time matters more.
@@JT29501I’ve heard more lanes in highways just lead to more congestion although obviously it’s not as simple as that and not that it doesn’t encourage public transport use which leads to more traffic.
@@Peter-mj6lz It's not really significant enough. Let's say you have 8 car trains, and you want to upgrade to 10 car trains (as happened near me quite recently). You add 2 extra carriages, so essentially one "extra" train in 4. If you are already running with good signalling at metro type frequencies, it might be impossible to add 1 new train for extra 4. However it's doubtful that any extra dwell time (and theoretically there really shouldn't be much, as long as you have plenty of doors and good station layouts that distribute passengers reasonably evenly) will cost as much as that 1 train in 4.
I certainly haven't noticed any extra dwell time from the recent upgrades near me. And the Elizabeth Line, also near me (I'm lucky) has very very long trains and generally gets unloaded and loaded very quickly indeed.
However, I would add I did put it third for a reason - if there is still space to improve frequencies, that is definitely preferable, although potentially more expensive. And obviously a whole new line will provide the most extra capacity of anything, but is also the most expensive.
Great innovations in train design!
Make all of the seats that can flip down from the wall of the car. When the car is full, the seats flip up to give more standing room.
As a New Yorker, the European trains shown here are straight from science fiction
You said it, even our R211Ts pale in comparison
Many Europeans have the same thought about Japanese trains lol. Especially their long distance high speed ones.
US :
more tracks & trains ❎
More roads & cars ✅
Right? The US hardly funds transportations as it is. No way they'll pay for these train designs.
@@jrho8033 And instead do what? Have outsiders design them? Just come up with specs and let the rest be up for interpretation?
Don’t lose hope! Someday we’ll have a transit network that’s good for everyone, I can feel it.
@@machinismus We used to. Our public transit was the envy of the world back in the early 20th century. Then it all got bought up by auto and tire manufacturers and systemically destroyed.
That's a gross oversimplification, of course, but it's essentially what happened.
Oshi iri Sama ? I love it!
Flip-up seats that flip out of the way when it's busy do not account for how trains usually get busy, which is that a few people will get on at each station over the course of many stations until the train is full & standing. About halfway through, when the train is somewhat busy, somebody will go & sit in the flip-up seats, & they will usually still be there when the train is packed.
I don't approve of spaces for bicycles that contain flip-up seats for when there isn't a bike: three seated passengers aren't going to stand to make room for 1 passenger with a bike.
India needs this asap
India already have them
4rabet pe roulette khelne ka experience bhi zabardast hai, kabhi bhi bore nahi hota
Now I have new perspective when I will board a train
Proof that all we need is better designed trains
As a New York City resident, I would opt-in removing more seats for standing room. Most New Yorkers are capable of standing, it really depends on social expectations on allowing elderly/disabled to take a seat (I also believe in making little kids stand as well). We would also implement this type of train on a shorter route that goes through very populated neighborhoods in rush hour, such as the 7 train that goes through Queens to Manhattan.
When my country removes seats from trains, our gov't euphemistically says that they now have "more space". Maybe we can also widen the doors & platform screen doors. Some trains in Tokyo's Metro are 1.8m wide! (wide enough for 4 people to walk through)
Bhai 4rabet pe games ka collection dekh ke toh main impressed ho gaya, live games, casino sab kuch hai
Mujhe 4ra ke recalculation system se bohot fayda hota hai, accurate results milte hain
In Washington DC, seats on the Metro are 19"/48cm wide (on MetroBus, they are 18"/46cm) and there are rows of 2+2 seating. Apparently no one that designs trains for Americans has noticed that the average American no longer fits in this tight space, especially while wearing winter clothes. Since passengers don't want to be literally rubbing against someone else, adjacent seats are often empty even when there are standing passengers, a situation made worse when the seated passenger puts their bag next to them. I believe it would be better to have 2+1 seating with each seat 24"/60cm wide as I don't believe that the the actual capacity loss really would be 25%. To get people out of cars, the alternative has to be comfortable and no car has seats so close together.
Increasing the number of trains during peak hours, coupled with better planning and design, could significantly improve public transportation. Trains should offer more seating and standing options, as well as designated spaces for bicycles, wheelchairs, and baby strollers. This would ensure a more efficient, inclusive, and comfortable travel experience for all passengers.
4ra pe variety of games hai yaar bhai jitni baar bhi khelo kabhi bore nahi hota
Someday, American rail passengers will learn that waiting for departing passengers to exit the train is far more efficient than trying to push exiting passengers backwards. That slows up rail service a lot in Los Angeles.
Anyone else want a icecream cone right now?
I reserved my opinion on the door and double decker rationality. In countries like India, double decker trains make it more economical with 4 doors. Or 3 wider doors. In india , it is also about sitting as majority is designed for standing because the aim is to move from point A to point B as a higher priority than designing sitting exclusive which is most common design in short distance travel with stations at a gap of 1.5km to 2 km average. India cannot afford to have too many cars if it wants to lower its AQI and traffic. So trains with broader doors and still solve problems. I as a designer would not consider about person coming from top deck to lower deck for door, as I would expect people with long journey to be on top deck and people with short journey in lower decks usually. Developing countries can use such wisdom to solve many problems.
Good information, thanks.
I like trains, and all these design features sound awesome. However, the issue is that as trains get more bespoke, they get more expensive. See CalTrain’s new electric KISS trains
Ha! That Heathrow Express train you pay through the nose for is just 5-10 minutes faster than the Elizabeth line. Unless you overslept it's not at all worth the money (not to mention, you may spend 10 minutes in Paddington getting onto the Heathrow Express whereas the Elizabeth line is more easily accessible in other stations, and it runs more frequently).
I was thinking the same lol. It shows just how good the Elizabeth Line actually is that it competes that closely with a dedicated service. Also I like how people seem to have forgotten the "we don't need this" and "it's too expensive and taking too long" complaints once it actually opened lol.
Amazing … 😊
What about people who stand in front of the doors and block people from coming out of the train? is there solution with design? 😅
I think signalling and station design plays as big or even a bigger role in preventing overcrowding.
Very interesting!
I don't know why we don't have double-decker platforms. I don't know why we don't use both sides of the carriage, with an entry side and an exit side. I don't know why we don't see intermodal cross platform transfers. Why, in short, are vehicle architecture and station architecture treated as unrelated?
Most networks were built by competing companies in much of the world. Lots even used different track gauge so their competitors couldn't make use of their infrastructure. You'd have to agree on a set of standards between all operators making use of the tracks, then essentially rebuild half of it to meet them all. The cost and disruption would immense.
I think Hannover has done one of the best jobs with their TW3000 commuter train
As an American, here's a great train design:
-Clean
-I don't get stabbed on the platform
-Actually sticks to the schedule
-Goes places I want to go at hours I want to go there
Once we can hit these BASICS maybe we can talk about the actual car design.
Also, WSJ you don't care about commuter trains. No American big business does. There's too much kickback money from the oil and car companies. This video is a joke.
That probably explains why it was narrated by an English guy and used largely UK footage lol.
Paying customers 😊
Bhai 4RA ka technical support bhi best hai, koi problem ho toh turant help mil jati hai
"Nobody likes packed commuter trains" Everyone on the commuter train that Jordan Neely boarded loved commuter trains when he was shouting his threats.
This guy should travel once in Mumbai local trains 😂😂
Honolulu has a brand new HART System. It only goes from Kapolei to Aloha Stadium for now, the rest of the line will go all the way into Honolulu, but only stops at Ala Moana Blvd. it should to all the way to Waikiki to help visitors go to and from HNL and back. UH Manoa would be ideal, but of course funding and budget is always the issue in Hawaii with limited resources. Someone needs to come to Hawaii and help out a growing population on the Leeward side of Oahu. Honolulu can be a world class city, if the infrastructure is up to par with the rest of the US.
The director is speaking very business convincing English mixed with French accent. Soo good
4rabet ka verification process bhi smooth hai, easily account verify ho jata hai
I live in a HOT country (Australia) and I am increasingly angered by companies like Alstom and Bombardier, pushing their pretty trains designed for cooler climates onto us. Our trains used to have poor or no air conditioning, but very good ventilation, and sun protection. Now they are all fully sealed and have huge windows, meaning all the passengers get baked. Also people tend to sweat on hot days so having sealed cars, means the smell is sickening.
Alstom isn’t your government. They present a bid to your government and then the that gov decides to award the bid to based off or cost or other reasons. Blame your government that procured the trains not Alstom. If your government really wanted to they could have asked Alstom to design the trains to meet the climate conditions that exist in your city.
@@cboy0394 Trust me dude, I DO blame the government. This video though is about the train designers and not the government. You must also consider that the manufacturers always offer cookie cutter, off the shelf designs with a "One Size Fits All" attitude. All the various trains and trams we have are are just the same as the ones in northern Europe, and the only real choice we are given is the interior seating arrangement.
Yes we could get a custom job done, but have you ever priced a 12 seat Mini Cooper? Customization costs big bucks whereas having trains already designed for hot climates only adds a small amount.
As you said, "They present a bid to your government..." but all the companies present their designs on a Take It Or Leave It basis.
I feel you. Indonesia also had this problem with old Japanese trains.
Thankfully, the train company took the matter into their own hands and retrofitted the trains with blasting ACs.
Now, sometimes it gets too cold on the train. Especially when it is empty late at night.
Speak for yourself. I live in a COOL part of Australia where snow settles in winter. Just because you live somewhere with an intolerable climate like Queensland, does not mean you speak for the entire continent.
It is your government's fault but Siemens kind of did the same thing to Amtrak. Siemens essentially refused to design a more comfortable seat and just stuck in their off the shelf European commuter rail seats. Even though the trains they are designing are aften used for 5 hour journeys.
A factor in this that cannot be controlled is station design. If the stairs or enterance to a station is at one end of a platform, naturally this area is crowded and those carriges are busier no matter how well you design the train. A lot of the time Carriage #1 may be have 30% empty seats whilst carrige five has standing room only. The hong kong method is a good step towards solving this but people do not always read it, or even if they do, they do not care! Humans are the limiting factor in the modern era.
This is where modern station designs (should) do better given the decades of data we have that show how people move around these networks. If you look at some of the Elizabeth Line stations under central London you'll see the entrances and exists are more evenly spaced along the platform and there are more of them, with much larger spaces between. The stations are truly massive, especially if you're used to the old deep level stations built 100+ years ago when they were still working all of this stuff out (because they were the first to do it).
They missed one very important, yet glaring piece to this conundrum.
All trains, whether train, tube, tram, metro, subway, etc have doors on both sides of the carriage, yet you can only enter or exit on one side. On most, at Canary Wharf station in London, you can enter/exit the tube on both sides, essentially crossing eastbound and westbound journeys without having to navigate stairs. This is rare.
If a whole line or system, had both left and right doors open at every station, this should make it easier and faster. You could even play around with it. Have customers enter on the right and exit on the left.
Sometimes humans do amazing things, others times you humans are as dumb as door nails!
Actually, its not entirely the fault of humans, since most stations are old, and to include a new platform is most times difficult.
Realistically the train layout depends on the capacity target of the train. In a commuter train you tend to see transversal seating simply because you sacrifice some standing capacity in exchange for extra comfort in longer journeys. In metros, you generally have longitudinal because most people aren't staying for a long while. From experience, these come given by transit authorities.
Oh and 4:44 is just false. If a train is cramped, it's because the system lacks capacity. There is only so much capacity you can squeeze from design decisions within the carriages themselves. The actual issue most likely lies in frequency which can be improved (resignalling to a CBTC system being a solution), or trains being too short (lengthening platforms being the solution). If you still lack capacity, sorry mate you're gonna have to build a new line paralleling the overcrowded existing one, like Paris did with 14 or London with the Lizzy.
The problem is the population. There should be more ways to get from one place to another and also more train or buses. Also everything should keep near (not far), so people could have the option to go where they need by walking or bicycle. But cities need to be made more for the pedestrian than for cars. This is my opinion living in Monterrey, Mexico, one of the most populated cities in Mexico.
Mujhe 4ra ke wheel games bhi bohot pasand hai, spin karke bonus jeetne ka chance
This is why NYCT 1 Train is better for commuters than the 4/5, pole is “20 centimeters” off center thereby keeping the doorway from being blocked by standing passengers. 4/5 is a total pain to exit/enter at express stops Union Sq./14th and GCT
It’s the older carriages with the better design 😂
Yaar 4ra pe bets lagane ka maza hi alag hai, process bohot simple hai
time punctuality both sub and above is important too and invest in automation so no more driver shortage even in late night and week end
Fun fact: Top 23 world’s busiest train stations are all located in Japan.
4ra pe withdrawals bhi bohot jaldi ho jate hain, kabhi delay nahi hota
4rabet pe cricket betting ka thrill alag hi level pe hota hai, real fun
Does someone at the Journal realize they just compared cruise ships on rails to subway trains? While it is nice the see the overall design process (most of this I already knew I took classes for this in college, but always nice to see again), that's not a fair comparison to crowd control. Especially when one of those trains has a ticket price of over a thousand dollars per person.
Most of the rolling stock shown in this video were from metro systems.
@@TalesOfWar Yes, a lot of its is, but in their intro, several of the trains they shows were all high end luxury trains, some of which cost over $5000 to get on.
Sahi hai bro 4rabet pe live casino khelne ka maza hi alag hai, real-time dealers ke saath
01:58 those red doors reminds me of Belgian's train
The best architecture is the Japanese type. It works from 1963 and the 103 series.
one level, 3/4 doors per side, 20m long, 2.95m wide, but curved at 3.05m wide, longitudinal seats, no strollers, no bikes and other bulky objects, reserved places for people with difficulties at the end of the cars, multiple support bars, long trainsets and medium to high frequency.
Trains that are too short risk limiting capacity and appeal!! Who wants to get on trains that are too crowded as soon as the line opens!!!
They manage to have lines with 150% load without too many problems, Japanese discipline also has a big part in this success.
Otherwise nice French accent..
where can i buy that elizabeth line model on your desk
Haan yaar, 4RA pe cricket betting ka alag hi maza hai, live matches dekhte dekhte bet karo
Bhai 4RA ka interface itna easy hai, sab kuch easily access hota hai
I trust 4rabet so much, their betting is fair and the odds are always good. Solid experience.
90% of americans watching: what is this crazy idea of commuting by train?
Shame there was no mention of accessibility in this, since public transport is a nightmare for disabled people
The perfect commute is home office, so I don’t have to deal with a train, or a commute.
I thought this was going to be about taking advantage of the stops to have some sort of revenue from real state owned and rented by the subway-train operators. Also, not exaggerating when building the train platforms, making it bigger than it needs to be.
Don’t mean to be disrespectful but have a look at the trains in Mumbai 😂 and see if you can apply these techniques to that high PPDPH
Haan yaar, 4RA pe deposit karna bohot easy hai, options bhi bohot saare hain
It would really helped if people didn't bring Godzilla bikes onto trains, and brought folding bicycles instead
Now design the perfect commuter
Sydney trains are the best
30 years yeah right some of the rolling stock from Mexico City is from the 70’s
Same on the London Underground. The Bakerloo and Piccadilly lines have rolling stock from 1972 and 1975 respectively. They're currently replacing the Piccadilly stock with some brand new ones but central government cut their funding for them a couple of years ago so they're going to be delayed. They were supposed to be replaced on both lines at the same time but that isn't happening any more. They've been doing some refurbishments on the Bakerloo stock as a stop gap.
Those poles in the door area look like a nightmare to maneuver around if you are in a wheelchair or have a stroller or walking aid.
And the crowds are not?
MORE TRAINZ
So why in Paris does the RER B train which runs between CDG Airport and Orly Airport have no space for luggage? Because it serves more local ipassengers in central Paris. Time for a dedicated train/s.
There are spaces for luggage on RER B trains.
But you're right, there will be a new dedicated train non-stop from Paris Gare de l'Est station, but also metro line 17.
Also, RER B will receive new trains in the coming years with a lot more room.
They'll be mostly double-decker, alternating single and double deck cars, larger internal platforms, etc.
That's the same complaint for the Elizabeth Line in London, though mostly for the western stretch from Paddington to Heathrow. The majority of the line is a commuter line, which is why they don't have toilets which is another complaint.
@@TalesOfWar RER B is passing the million daily passengers and keeps growing, still with older trains.
So the level of overcrowding is much more felt than on the Elizabeth line.
Though I'm guessing some are starting to regret that the Lizzie line was not prepared for double-decker trains, especially as it's London's RER A or B counterpart and was destined for massive crowds.
How are charging ports some luxury these days? Even my local buses are rolling out usb charging ports and it's owned by the council.
All algorithms work until you come to Delhi metro 😂😂
Just design a train that has no ending.
Image IF America had cross country train rides where youd basically stay in your own room and then go eat in the dining room in the morning, stuff like that. I would pay sooo much moeny to do that
* Prods you to check out Amtrack sleeper trains of today
They're slow and quite expensive though which is why not many people take them