The spaghetti metaphor tells part of the story, though I’ve never seen spaghetti somewhat coupled (constrained) to some kind of path (analogous to a track). >

The spaghetti metaphor tells part of the story, though I’ve never seen spaghetti somewhat coupled (constrained) to some kind of path (analogous to a track). > Longer trains are harder to stop, harder to control, less robust to disturbances. All other things equal, this seems plausible, but I’m no expert on trains. So if I studied it, I would likely agree in most cases. However, I do wonder if longer trains, being more massive, do offer some benefits in some cases. Perhaps a disturbance affecting only one car would have less effect because the other cars have more inertia and resist change. This of course relates the question of the design criteria. Clearly trains should be designed with a cost benefit analysis such that more common disturbances can be handled. What kinds of disturbances can and should be planned for?