6 ms·

It feels odd to talk about the US without bringing up BART, which has comparable characteristics to the Elizabeth Line (the yellow line is over 60 miles long, f

by mjg59 2y ago

It feels odd to talk about the US without bringing up BART, which has comparable characteristics to the Elizabeth Line (the yellow line is over 60 miles long, for instance, and headway through the core area is under 5 minutes at peak).

tialaramex 2y ago
Where is this "Under 5 minutes at peak" ? I see about 6tph scheduled on BART's busiest line at rush hour. The Elizabeth Line's core runs 24tph which is what I'd consider an actual metro service - No reason to schedule my arrival, normal operating fluctuations dominate attempts to get there in a timely fashion so just rock up and board the next train.
- jmalicki 2y ago
  "headway through the core area" The core area of West Oakland, SF, and Daly City has service from all lines, so it's the sum of tph of all lines. Of course, that does not help you at all for commuting outside the core area - which is where the length comes into play. The GP wasn't wrong, just disingenuous.
  - avianlyric 2y ago
    If you’re going to take that view, then you need to be comparing the BART system to the entire London Metro system (The Tube, overground, Lizzie line, and suburban rail). There are many services that run parallel to the Lizzie line in central London. But they don’t share track, because that’s a terrible way to operate a metro service. If you take that approach, then BART looks like a toy compared to its equivalent in London.
    - mjg59 2y ago
      If you're making that comparison then you need to count the frequency of Shenfield services separately from Abbey Wood services.
  - ta1243 2y ago
    On different lines? By that definition there's about 300 trains per hour in the core of London across each underground line, elizabeth and thameslink. That's in each direction. That's one train departing from the core of London every 6 seconds, before you even consider surface rail.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      I think you have a different definition of "different lines". BART is like a tree. The branches join together into one trunk. It's shared tracks into the same stations. So measuring the frequency of all the lines makes sense, as long as you only want to move between stations on the trunk. London is not like that (if I understand correctly). Elizabeth and Thameslink don't share tracks between common stations. So London has much higher aggregate than BART. But the statement about BART's train frequency on the trunk is not a nonsense statement.
      - ta1243 2y ago
        OK, so it's about 12tph on bart on the core stations? Disappointingly difficult to get a map of bart which wasn't geographic. So all the lines share track from Daly City to West Oakland, with some extending to Millbrae, and then branches on the east side of the bay? From the map, it looks similar to the Picadilly Line, or Central line, or as mentioned upthread the Metropolitan line, but BART has 12tph on the core, where those services have twice that. Each "line" is just a branch on a core service. The longest run is 53 miles (there's a completely separate service), which is a bit more than the Picadilly line (46) but not massively, and the frequency is under half that of the Picadilly. I think it's fair to compare BART with a single London Underground line (like the Picadilly, or the Central), just with half the frequency.
      - jmalicki 2y ago
        Another analogy might be the NYC subway, where in Manhattan you have lines like 1/2/3, A/C/E, B/D/F/M, N/R/W etc. that share a number of stops in southern Manhattan, so along the 1/2/3 or A/C/E, the sum of tph matters... but as they break from that "trunk" in the boroughs, or at the ends of Manhattan, the individual lines matters.
- ghaff 2y ago
  I don't use BART a lot--mostly from SFO into the city--but I don't schedule my arrival. Pretty much walk up. Contrast that with actual commuter rail in my city which is pretty much useless for an evening event as I think there are two trains scheduled after around 8pm.
avianlyric 2y ago
BART and the Lizzie line aren’t even vaguely comparable. The Lizzie line is just one line in London. The closest comparable line on the BART system is the yellow line. The Yellow line seems to operate a maximum of 5 trains/hour, over a distance of 62 miles, at a max speed of 70mph, and still uses a fixed block system. The Lizzie line in comparison operates 24 trains/hour in its central core, has a total distance of 73miles, a max speed of 90mph, and operates an almost fully automated moving block system in its central core (that how it can achieve 24tph). The two systems aren’t even in the same league when it comes to capacity, speed or capability.
- presentation 2y ago
  It's the closest thing the USA has got... which isn't much. "Will the US get on board?" Maybe in a century or two...
PopAlongKid 2y ago
BART is primarily a suburban commuter train. Borne out by the fact that ever since the pandemic when downtown San Francisco offices reached record vacancy rates, BART ridership is way down, because of much fewer commuters.

by mjg59 2y ago

tialaramex 2y ago

Where is this "Under 5 minutes at peak" ? I see about 6tph scheduled on BART's busiest line at rush hour. The Elizabeth Line's core runs 24tph which is what I'd consider an actual metro service - No reason to schedule my arrival, normal operating fluctuations dominate attempts to get there in a timely fashion so just rock up and board the next train.

jmalicki 2y ago
"headway through the core area" The core area of West Oakland, SF, and Daly City has service from all lines, so it's the sum of tph of all lines. Of course, that does not help you at all for commuting outside the core area - which is where the length comes into play. The GP wasn't wrong, just disingenuous.
- avianlyric 2y ago
  If you’re going to take that view, then you need to be comparing the BART system to the entire London Metro system (The Tube, overground, Lizzie line, and suburban rail). There are many services that run parallel to the Lizzie line in central London. But they don’t share track, because that’s a terrible way to operate a metro service. If you take that approach, then BART looks like a toy compared to its equivalent in London.
  - mjg59 2y ago
    If you're making that comparison then you need to count the frequency of Shenfield services separately from Abbey Wood services.
- ta1243 2y ago
  On different lines? By that definition there's about 300 trains per hour in the core of London across each underground line, elizabeth and thameslink. That's in each direction. That's one train departing from the core of London every 6 seconds, before you even consider surface rail.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    I think you have a different definition of "different lines". BART is like a tree. The branches join together into one trunk. It's shared tracks into the same stations. So measuring the frequency of all the lines makes sense, as long as you only want to move between stations on the trunk. London is not like that (if I understand correctly). Elizabeth and Thameslink don't share tracks between common stations. So London has much higher aggregate than BART. But the statement about BART's train frequency on the trunk is not a nonsense statement.
    - ta1243 2y ago
      OK, so it's about 12tph on bart on the core stations? Disappointingly difficult to get a map of bart which wasn't geographic. So all the lines share track from Daly City to West Oakland, with some extending to Millbrae, and then branches on the east side of the bay? From the map, it looks similar to the Picadilly Line, or Central line, or as mentioned upthread the Metropolitan line, but BART has 12tph on the core, where those services have twice that. Each "line" is just a branch on a core service. The longest run is 53 miles (there's a completely separate service), which is a bit more than the Picadilly line (46) but not massively, and the frequency is under half that of the Picadilly. I think it's fair to compare BART with a single London Underground line (like the Picadilly, or the Central), just with half the frequency.
    - jmalicki 2y ago
      Another analogy might be the NYC subway, where in Manhattan you have lines like 1/2/3, A/C/E, B/D/F/M, N/R/W etc. that share a number of stops in southern Manhattan, so along the 1/2/3 or A/C/E, the sum of tph matters... but as they break from that "trunk" in the boroughs, or at the ends of Manhattan, the individual lines matters.
ghaff 2y ago
I don't use BART a lot--mostly from SFO into the city--but I don't schedule my arrival. Pretty much walk up. Contrast that with actual commuter rail in my city which is pretty much useless for an evening event as I think there are two trains scheduled after around 8pm.

avianlyric 2y ago

BART and the Lizzie line aren’t even vaguely comparable. The Lizzie line is just one line in London. The closest comparable line on the BART system is the yellow line. The Yellow line seems to operate a maximum of 5 trains/hour, over a distance of 62 miles, at a max speed of 70mph, and still uses a fixed block system. The Lizzie line in comparison operates 24 trains/hour in its central core, has a total distance of 73miles, a max speed of 90mph, and operates an almost fully automated moving block system in its central core (that how it can achieve 24tph). The two systems aren’t even in the same league when it comes to capacity, speed or capability.

presentation 2y ago
It's the closest thing the USA has got... which isn't much. "Will the US get on board?" Maybe in a century or two...

PopAlongKid 2y ago

BART is primarily a suburban commuter train. Borne out by the fact that ever since the pandemic when downtown San Francisco offices reached record vacancy rates, BART ridership is way down, because of much fewer commuters.