4 ms·

I still do not understand how local rail ends up fragmented like this. The Tokyo metropolitan area has like… what? 8 operators? You’d feel like there would be s

by rtpg 3y ago

I still do not understand how local rail ends up fragmented like this. The Tokyo metropolitan area has like… what? 8 operators? You’d feel like there would be some consolidation and yet.

Empact 3y ago
They may appreciate that competition between the operators is a mechanism to support efficiency and progress in infrastructure. Each rail operator wants people visiting their malls, building near their stations, and in working towards that, they improve their systems.
InitialLastName 3y ago
In NYC, the MTA runs both so they are technically consolidated, but changing car widths on a live subway system that is used by millions of people every day is on the list of very difficult problems. For example, if you wanted to conform the IRT lines in NYC (the numbered lines + the 42nd Street Shuttle) to the BMT/IND lines, you would need to (at minimum), update every platform (to back the edge away from the train), probably update every place two tracks are parallel and too close together, probably also update some of the routing and tunnels to enable a larger turning radius, and reapprove all of the tracks (including elevated portions) to support heavier trains. Since all of the lines (barring the 7 and S) overlap at different points, you can't just make these mutually exclusive changes to one line at a time; you would have to shut down the whole system to make the changes, eliminating service to huge areas of the city for months (if not years).
dunmalg 3y ago
Like any public utility, there's a huge cost to get the infrastructure in place because there is... well... a CITY in the way. The immense capital outlay is generally worth it for the first to enter the market in a given area, because they stand to collect 100% of the demand for the service they offer. In contrast, a second competing entity incurs the same capital outlay, but can only count on as much of it's competitors business as it can wrest away. Unless their offering is of substantially better value, the most they can realistically hope for is 50%. In cases like local rail service, the initial outlay is so immense that there's little chance that anyone could make a compelling business case for it.
Bos_Transit_Guy 3y ago
See the earlier comment, the large Japanese private railways are real estate and hospitality companies with a train side business. Each has built their own little fiefdom, but they play nice enough (thru trains, tourist passes, and regional transit payment cars) to make all the effort not worthwhile. Although during WWII and for some years after all the lines to the south and southwest of Tokyo were under Tokyu Railways (then known as Dai Tokyu, or "Big Tokyu).

by rtpg 3y ago

I still do not understand how local rail ends up fragmented like this. The Tokyo metropolitan area has like… what? 8 operators? You’d feel like there would be some consolidation and yet.

Empact 3y ago

They may appreciate that competition between the operators is a mechanism to support efficiency and progress in infrastructure. Each rail operator wants people visiting their malls, building near their stations, and in working towards that, they improve their systems.

InitialLastName 3y ago

In NYC, the MTA runs both so they are technically consolidated, but changing car widths on a live subway system that is used by millions of people every day is on the list of very difficult problems. For example, if you wanted to conform the IRT lines in NYC (the numbered lines + the 42nd Street Shuttle) to the BMT/IND lines, you would need to (at minimum), update every platform (to back the edge away from the train), probably update every place two tracks are parallel and too close together, probably also update some of the routing and tunnels to enable a larger turning radius, and reapprove all of the tracks (including elevated portions) to support heavier trains. Since all of the lines (barring the 7 and S) overlap at different points, you can't just make these mutually exclusive changes to one line at a time; you would have to shut down the whole system to make the changes, eliminating service to huge areas of the city for months (if not years).

dunmalg 3y ago

Like any public utility, there's a huge cost to get the infrastructure in place because there is... well... a CITY in the way. The immense capital outlay is generally worth it for the first to enter the market in a given area, because they stand to collect 100% of the demand for the service they offer. In contrast, a second competing entity incurs the same capital outlay, but can only count on as much of it's competitors business as it can wrest away. Unless their offering is of substantially better value, the most they can realistically hope for is 50%. In cases like local rail service, the initial outlay is so immense that there's little chance that anyone could make a compelling business case for it.

Bos_Transit_Guy 3y ago

See the earlier comment, the large Japanese private railways are real estate and hospitality companies with a train side business. Each has built their own little fiefdom, but they play nice enough (thru trains, tourist passes, and regional transit payment cars) to make all the effort not worthwhile. Although during WWII and for some years after all the lines to the south and southwest of Tokyo were under Tokyu Railways (then known as Dai Tokyu, or "Big Tokyu).