3 ms·
Top speed, sure, but for typical commuter heavy-rail, a non-express train isn't running at top speed for all that long. Diesel-electric trains take a LOT longe
by scottbez1 2y ago
Top speed, sure, but for typical commuter heavy-rail, a non-express train isn't running at top speed for all that long.
Diesel-electric trains take a LOT longer to accelerate compared to a modern EMU, so much so that Caltrain's electrification project shaved 23 minutes off the SF to San Jose local trip, from 100 to 77 minutes.
Videos [0] [1] make the acceleration improvement pretty clear.
[0] https://x.com/Caltrain/status/1804278237486588179 https://x.com/Caltrain/status/1804278237486588179
[1] https://x.com/eiioth/status/1822814729079009516 https://x.com/eiioth/status/1822814729079009516
- potato3732842 2y agoThe MBTA already runs top speed on most of its lines once you get outside of roughly I95 depending on the line. Getting there faster would help but I don't think it would shave as much time off the end to end trip as you think. And for the urban stops they already accelerate and brake at the limit of what is reasonable for standing passengers. They can't push it too much or an old lady is gonna bounce off a wall and get a nose bleed and that's a bad look. It's not like Acela where a ticket guarantees a seat. There will definitely be some improvement from electrification but I don't think it will affect median travel times much and the affect on average will mostly be from reliability.
- ghaff 2y agoThe Fitchburg line did do upgrades a few years ago. I think they double-tracked sections that weren't. It still take a while--hour+--from the outer reaches.
- adgjlsfhk1 2y agoif there aren't enough seats and they're still running 30 minute headways, that's incredibly stupid.
- ghaff 2y agoNot enough seats is mostly pretty close into the city in my experience. At least on the line that I sometimes take, it's mostly Waltham in which doesn't have a mass transit line.