3 ms·
The optimal amount of train delay is non-zero. You need high redundancy to avoid many causes - and their knock on effects - and redundancy is antithetical to ef
by devnullbrain 2y ago
The optimal amount of train delay is non-zero. You need high redundancy to avoid many causes - and their knock on effects - and redundancy is antithetical to efficiency.
- Aeolun 2y agoThat’s only true if your goal is to optimize for profit instead of passenger satisfaction.
- devnullbrain 2y agoPassengers have to pay.
- RandomBacon 2y agohave to or choose to?
- devnullbrain 2y agoYes, you're not a legitimate passenger if you haven't paid the fare. It's immaterial though. They could instead face increased cost in taxes, decreased investment elsewhere, or good-old eminent domain for infrastructure expansion. The downstream effects of an infinite number of backup lines to guarantee service following an infinite number of track trespassers are not good for passenger satisfaction.
- RandomBacon 2y agoSorry, I misunderstood something earlier.
- Aeolun 2y agoAnd trains have to reliably get people to their destination on time. Regardless, my point is that the optimal amount of delay for profit and passenger satisfaction is not the same. Ever since I’ve seen Japan’s trains drive perfectly as long as it’s not raining, on segments as short as 2 minutes apart, its become abundantly clear to me that delay is not an inherent property of any rail system.
- seabass-labrax 2y agoYou're missing an axiom there - that efficiency is a superior goal to punctuality, or to something else entirely. Considering the amount of rolling stock just sitting around unused in sidings at depots, one can presume that many railway operators don't rank efficient allocation of resources quite as highly as you do!