3 ms·

> I'm a bit disappointed with the low frequency, short trains that Singapore deployed. Could you explain this a bit more please? I've lived here for 6 years no

> I'm a bit disappointed with the low frequency, short trains that Singapore deployed. Could you explain this a bit more please? I've lived here for 6 years now, been to Japan and Taiwan, consider Taiwan the best of all 3, but cannot compare to Hong Kong as I've never been there. Taiwan trains are a bit slower than SG, but they are much smoother, where in SG sometimes the older lines (green / red) which still have drivers I believe, are fast and break suddenly that you MUST hold onto something if standing to prevent yourself falling over. So I'm curious what you mean?

emmanuel_1234 9y ago
Hong Kong trains (and consequently, platforms) are a lot longer, meaning a train can fit a lot more people. They also run more frequently, especially during traffic hour. Mind you, Hong Kong trains also gets full doing rush hour (it's not rare to have to wait a train or two to get in, meaning 5 minutes top). What annoys me in Singapore, especially with the East West line, is that there are so many people in the morning, yet the trains are tiny and run every 4 or 5 minutes only. You actually have to fight your way to get in and squeeze. I know the Downtown line doesn't seem to suffer as much, as there seem to be a lot less traffic (I assume the wealthier people who live along this line take their car?). Hong Kong is bound to fail at some point though. They can't add more trains during rush hour, it's too late to make the station and trains longer, and some station are at saturation already. One of them, Admiralty, offers to commute on the same platform (i.e.: exit the train, walk straight to meet your correspondence). There are so many people that you sometimes hardly can exit the train, as the platform is too packed by people trying to get to the other train. The density of population in Hong Kong (for the actually populated area, not the land as a whole) is staggering though, in my experience / feeling, a lot higher than Singapore or Tokyo/Yokohama.

emmanuel_1234 9y ago

Hong Kong trains (and consequently, platforms) are a lot longer, meaning a train can fit a lot more people. They also run more frequently, especially during traffic hour. Mind you, Hong Kong trains also gets full doing rush hour (it's not rare to have to wait a train or two to get in, meaning 5 minutes top). What annoys me in Singapore, especially with the East West line, is that there are so many people in the morning, yet the trains are tiny and run every 4 or 5 minutes only. You actually have to fight your way to get in and squeeze. I know the Downtown line doesn't seem to suffer as much, as there seem to be a lot less traffic (I assume the wealthier people who live along this line take their car?). Hong Kong is bound to fail at some point though. They can't add more trains during rush hour, it's too late to make the station and trains longer, and some station are at saturation already. One of them, Admiralty, offers to commute on the same platform (i.e.: exit the train, walk straight to meet your correspondence). There are so many people that you sometimes hardly can exit the train, as the platform is too packed by people trying to get to the other train. The density of population in Hong Kong (for the actually populated area, not the land as a whole) is staggering though, in my experience / feeling, a lot higher than Singapore or Tokyo/Yokohama.