Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TouchDownBurrito t1_iycxlif wrote

Space Karen would remove the trains and pave the tunnels so cars can drive in them, then get pissy when people point out he only made things worse.

47

transferStudent2018 t1_iycxthj wrote

At least the project would still be delivered late and over budget, as is tradition

14

Squish_the_android t1_iycy7dv wrote

I've always thought that removing the trains and just running buses on the rails would be better.

Car breaks? Drive it off/tow it off to fix it.

Easy to replace.

Run a bunch of them all the time.

Edit:

I feel like I should clarify that I was specifically thinking about the commuter rail when it came to this comment and just didn't translate that from my head to my post. I'm not going to spend all day talking about the validity of this idea because I don't really care, but that's where this thought originated from.

−12

therealcmj t1_iyd274q wrote

Busses carry fewer people.

Busses require more drivers per unit of passengers.

Busses would need to go slower to safely navigate the tunnels.

Busses have higher maintenance cost.

Busses burn fuel, the exhaust will need to be removed from the tunnel.

I could go on but busses in tunnels is worse in every way than trains in tunnels.

24

ch1ck3npotpi3 t1_iyd1xxn wrote

All trains already have the ability to tow and push other trains. That's what the couplers on the front and rear are for. The train behind the disabled train simply connects to it and pushes it to the yard.

Buses don't have that ability. When a Silver Line bus breaks down in the Waterfront tunnel, the buses in front of it have to clear the tunnel, and a mini tow truck has to back into the tunnel. It takes way longer to remove a disabled bus from the tunnel than a train.

The problem isn't the technology. Trains are already proven to be more efficient than buses in other first world countries. It's that the MBTA's operations are shit and they manage to make both trains and buses wildly inefficient.

12

Squish_the_android t1_iyd31ut wrote

I guess this is kind of my point. The MBTA has proven that they simply can't manage trains and don't seem to care to change that. At least buses are cheaper and swappable.

−9

NoMoLerking t1_iyd2o6v wrote

Nah. You’d either have to go v-e-r-y slow or risk buses smashing into the side of the tunnel every time the driver got a text.

5

SkiingAway t1_iyd4l2m wrote

  • Fixed-guideway services can run in a narrower right of way (or tunnel) at higher speeds without crashing.

  • Capacity/bunching - A bunch of separate smaller vehicles is much worse. Passengers don't/can't distribute themselves efficiently and leads to heavy delays and varying loads between cars. This is part of why the Green Line is going to much longer vehicles on the Type 10's.

  • A broken down bus in a narrow tunnel/right of way isn't really any easier to remove.

  • You still can only get to it from the ends of that tunnel/corridor, so it's not like it can just pull over out of the way or have others go around it.

  • A bus long enough to handle the capacity loads of a train, is not a bus that's going to be easy to just remove via city streets.

  • If anything it's probably harder, because you still need to steer it.

  • Operational costs - More operators needed. If you think full automation is possible, you're still talking a lot of duplication of guidance systems/sensors with more lower capacity vehicles.

And if you try to solve all those problems while not running "on" rails - your concept will eventually just turn into a rubber-tire metro, like you see in Montreal. They work fine and have some pros/cons, but there's nothing about them that's easier in the senses you're talking about.

5