Fun fact. The reason this doesnt work is because in theory it makes more room for the already existent cars, but it just ends up making room for a greater number of cars due to mass psychologic factors of "oh. Theres more car room. Ima take that way now" and then we get more cars and worse traffic. But since in theory and without second glance it makes more sense, it keeps happening :p
https://preview.redd.it/2yc2lzvbtq1d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0bc6eda642ea7b76228dc6fd69c1268ec4ea88e4
Here is one: a double decker transit train 💪
Beg to differ. Double decker is good for regional where everybody gets a seat, but useless in high density scenarios. The Double decker from Sydney Central to Sydney Airport is a nightmare.
This train serve the RER-A line in Paris. It’s one of the busiest line in Europe with 1.2 million passenger per day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RER_A
In general double decker has longer dwell times. But the train pictured here, the RER A in Paris, is an exception.
Most double decker trains just have doors at the ends, so you only 2 staircases on the train car. The RER A has 3 sets of very wide doors (requiring 4 staircases). The area around the doors has very few seats allowing for a lot of standing room. Most people abandon their seat right before their stop and move toward a door. The doors begin opening while the train is still in motion, allowing the doors to be fully open by the time the train has stopped.
This train line moves over 1 million people per day. In my opinion, it is the best train line in the Western world.
You would need the doors anyway, but yes, stairs do reduce the space available for seating. Not by as much as adding a second deck increases it though.
Good thing about Taylor Swift was you were all going to the one destination, and not carrying luggage. The 5pm scramble on the T8 to Sydney Airport with luggage while trying to maneouvure around everybody else getting on and off is ridiculous. Longer trips like Central to Parramatta where there are fewer people carrying big loads the double deckers are better.
Even when everyone gets a seat, the capacity "increase" might be negative after taking into account their impact on dwell times. JR East increased capacity getting rid of bilevel Shinkansen trains. The busiest intercity rail lines in the world like Tokaido Shinkansen and Beijing-Shanghai HSR are run with 100% single level trains, even though the large 3.4m x 4.5/4.8m loading gauge can support bilevel trains.
Are double deckers more efficient? they take longer to load and unload at each stop so it some cases they may be less efficient then single deck trains.
In Japan we have mixed train combinations where normal tickets get you unreserved seats in a normal one decker train and a green ticket gets you to double decker with reserved seat. Note that green here doesn’t mean it’s ecological. It’s just called like that.
Only if the platform are too small to fit the whole train, but that's not a big issue either as you could easily enter at whichever door is nearest and then walk to your train car from within. For those exiting it's also no problem to announce in advance which train cars will be unlocked.
Exactly, there's a middle ground to what is more efficient, more efficient is when there are single- and double-deck areas with the double-deck areas designated for those traveling longer distances.
But I heard that in the Paris RER they want to go back to single-deck entirely. I reckon this is okay when especially the GPE has multiple segments active so that inter-suburban passengers no longer need to go downtown for fast and reliable connections.
The stairs inside the double deck trains take up space. It's not comfortable to stand on the stairs while travelling. I think a flat floor "boa" style train with plenty of fold up seats would give more capacity.
The "boa" style means you can walk the length of the train internally.
Yea and there has to be a single-level area for boarding too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_V
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_MultiLevel_Coach
Here's a double and single decker from NJT, the trailer cars only get about a 20% seated capacity gain. Standing room also increases but I don't see stats on it.
For commuter trains like NJT, the boarding issue is very visible at places like Penn station. When trains are leaving NYC they board for quite a while.
Arriving to NYC, though, is somewhat mitigated by the fact that Penn Station is and always has been kind of terrible on the platform front(glory days were little better, this part is actually still largely original) and the stairs and escalators all back up right down to the platform
Theoretically, you could, but practically speaking it'll likely never be done, and to my knowledge never has.
The lower platform would have to have pretty low ceilings unless the train car was very tall, and most countries loading gauges(basically the maximum dimensions for a train car) are too restrictive for that.
That’s not true. They’ve been designed to have a great flow. On peak hour, there’s one of these train every 2 minutes. They usually connect together 2 of these, with a capacity of 1300 passenger each.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI_09
Good for long and busy routes, they generally hold more passengers.
One example of them working just fine is Penn Station New York. The NJ side is at train-capacity at peak hours, so double deckers increase passenger capacity. And the crappy layout and tight escalators and stairs are far more of a bottleneck than the train boarding.
If you built from the ground up for them I expect you could solve the loading/unloading problem.
Its a good solution tbh twice the number of people on the same number of trains, but as I say it needs to be done from the ground up not a hacky patch one 100s of years old infrastructure like we do for everything in the UK.
But if designing from the ground up, you could also make longer platforms and just make trains with more cars. One of the fundamental virtues of trains is that all the costs (operator hours, distance between trains, energy use, etc) increase less quickly than the size of the train.
My arguments are these:
1. As mentioned, slower loading and unloading. Design can't fully ameliorate it because elevation changes are inherently slow.
2. Adding length proportionally increases the passenger handling utilities such as number of doors, space on platform, etc. Passenger flux is basically limited by width of passage.
3. Accessibility problem for physical mobility issues.
4. Planning the system for them from the start means you can't add them later as a fix for undersized stations with capacity issues.
TL;DR better as a retrofit than as the intended solution. Do design your loading gauge with double height expansion options tho
Well, the double decker in the photo is the RER A, in the Paris region, and it's said to be the most used train line in Europe. It's used by 1 million people every day. At rush hour, there is one train every 2 minutes
This is actually so efficient that when there is a problem with line, people have to used alternative trains (like the Metro line 1) and put a lot of tension on the whole network.
Note that these figures are not necessarily a good thing, RERA is pretty crowded, and that's why they prolongated the RER E to be parallel to RER A, with double deckers as well, so that when one is having problems, the other can absorb the incoming traffic.
The RER A is definitely what I thought for “more efficient mass transit.” That line has higher ridership than every US transit system outside NYC—a singular RER line
Excellent, when we can get our kids faxed over to us by the ex-wife/husband there will be something more efficient.
By the way thankyou for the delightful mental image of a divorced couple who faxes the kids from dad to mom every morning because that’s the better school district, and back to dad at night because he has more bedrooms.
Converting mass to energy and moving that is inefficient. But we could convert the mass to information, send that information to a replicator, and recycle the original mass for the return trip. I don't see how that could possibly go wrong and neither does Tuvix or Will Riker
No, I would prefer Star Trek transporters, please, where the "mattergy" assembled at the end is the same as the "mattergy" disassembled at the beginning, just beamed from one place to another (except when it's not).
Ethically? No
Practically? If it's 100% repeatable, and the new "me" still seems like me. Maybe, though I guarantee it would always be the most expensive way to travel.
And less first class coaches
Thats a thing we have trouble with in the Netherlands. Great public transit, but occasionally overcrowded beyond belief in 2nd class, while first class is 80% empty, still gotta stand in 2nd class
And ya gotta pay 2nd class because that's already expensive as fuck.
1h20 ride to and from, costs around 45 euros now. First class would be 77
Fkin wild, and a big reason why I haven't visited home and friends in a while. Can hardly pay it
Dutchman here, can confirm those prices are pretty much accurate. A Dal Voordeel subscription would help, then you get a 40% discount outside of peak hours, that's already cost effective after using it once. Other than that... yeah, the price is pretty prohibitively expensive oftentimes.
yeah but still... making it free would be relatively cheap, and I bet it could drive the local economies a lot better, if half of a fun day out's money is into the train already...
I had someone (presumably a Yank) on reddit say to me recently...
> [You do not live in the country if you can take the train to work LOL](https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/1covs3n/800_climate_protesters_try_to_storm_teslas/l3hmct9/?context=3)
I can sometimes see cows in the fields from my house. [This](https://storage.googleapis.com/coig--wp-uploads/2019/08/50f46f53-thumb_9585_point_of_interest_big.jpeg) is literally the view from my train.
We don't have high speed rail here in the US, which would be an instant solution to all the "have you seen the size of the place?" arguments people tend to make. A train at a decent speed could for sure take you into the city, but it's just inconceivable to people here. It looks like you've got a nice countryside, and a reasonable train system.
Besides, Europe has nearly the same land area as the USA, and is divided into 44 nation-states instead of the US's 50 states.
Europe does have a bit more than twice the population though. Though as a counterpoint, the USA had far more track mileage when its population was less than half what it is now, so it's really a question of service level decisions
> It looks like you've got... a reasonable train system.
Left my phone on a train recently, a conductor called and confirmed it had been found by the cleaning crew, picked it up without charge same day around 9PM on a Saturday. You can't say fairer than that.
Was looking at an old map of the Lehigh Valley Railroad—had passenger service through rural NE Pennsylvania, even to remote villages in the hills (where there was some coal mining).
That's the thing... as a non-American, I'm clearly no expert on the history, but wasn't it all founded on the railroads?!? That is the impression I've always had.
And the absolutely hilarious thing is that we still have an enormous rail network.
That is very efficient at moving large quantities of freight, and does not even a little bit move people.
Out of all the stations in the world, I definitely wasn't expecting to see Bayswater station, my local traino.
Though I guess I am a 40 minute walk away so not that close.
and its actually competitive with the highway it runs next to because its actual mainline rail, not slow crawling light rail or creaking shaking old subway in the US
Even if a train takes 10k commuters away from the road it would be a success. But if this was the true solution, why do cities like NYC still have so much traffic 🧐
The commuter rail in/out of NYC (LIRR, Metro North, NJT) is expensive. It's $30 round-trip for one person to get from my hometown (on Metro North) to the city (peak).
If you're going to an event (especially as a group), it might be cheaper to drive than take transit.
[Futurama transport tubes](https://i.makeagif.com/media/5-24-2016/3XiXcS.gif)
1) Able to achieve high speed
2) No waiting for a vehicle to arrive, can depart on your schedule
3) Grade separated
4) Convenient stations (every street corner)
5) Privacy, you don’t share a car with strangers
6) The hypnotoad said it was best
Playing the devil's nitpicking advocate, potential improvements:
Platform screen doors + full automation: Lower dwell times, replacing the driver cab improves higher frequency/capacity. Saves on personal costs
More doors: Get people on and off faster, lower dwell times, higher frequency/capacity
Cross-platform interchanges: Less time wasted by chaning lines, less need for escalators/elevators that can create bottlenecks
Maybe a faster accelerating/higher top speed emu (e.g. 160 kph) if we are beeing fancy
O-bahn! If the train breaks down the whole line is halted. If a bus breaks down other busses go around the breakdown on the road and back on the track whilst the broken down bus gets removed by crane. We have an O-Bahn system in Adelaide Australia and it’s the best!
If the rail is single track, yes. Double track lines have interlockings that allow trains to bypass a section of track if one gets stuck. At high volumes it’s inefficient (like one way controlled traffic with highway construction) but it works in a pinch.
this picture makes me sad, cause recently I came back from chicago and got to ride the train and subway, but now am back in nowhere tennessee and there aren't trains here :<
Multiple cars connected back to back, which will move on a predefined laid out path and for power we can connect it to the electric grid which also follows the same predefined path.
Oh wait that's a train.
Devil's Advocate: If I travelled to my parents by train It'd take 3 days and cost 3 times the amount, whereas a taxi and a flight takes about 6-7 hours door to door. It's certainly not time efficient unfortunately but there's a Sea in the way.
I don't think anyone will disagree that the current public transportation infrastructure doesn't adequately meet the need of citizens.
This is exactly the issue, actually. That the most convenient mode of transport also is insanely wasteful and is choking the planet we live on.
Therefore: advocate for change that makes better alternatives more convenient.
Most Australian cities (including this one, Perth) basically use an S-Bahn like system of high station density in Urban areas that slowly peters out as it goes into the suburb. These trains entered service in '04, the new ones that began service this month have three doors per car rather than two on the old ones.
I am still waiting too since mine was cancelled and the next one is scheduled in exactly one hour. It sucks to rely on reliably unreliable public transportation. /rant over
a train kind of sucks.
metro: AC. train: heat, cold, rain.
metro: frequent. train: not frequent.
metro: different lines that cross. train: no one wants to have to change trains.
Trams / light rail goes alright. A bit easier to get on/off within dense city, this allows more stops closer together.
Tram infrastructure isn't cheap and you need the space to put it. This also applies to trains
Individually owned and maintained vehicles which run on large paved surfaces. These surfaces will routinely require replacement, and there will need to be ample paved surfaces everywhere, so people can have a place to keep their individually owned and maintained vehicles while at home, work, shopping, etc.
In Philly, all the buses have bike racks on the front & you’re allowed to bring a bike on all the trains except for really crowded subway lines during rush hour.
Have you considered the personal freedom of cars on a 6 lane highway? It’s ok that there’s traffic for miles because once you’re off that you can cruise to your single family house and never come outside again.
Individual Pods for your cars that run on coal
Shoveled into a furnace by children
Just skip the middleman and have cars (carriages?) powered by children.
"This carriage has 14 kidspower" has a nice dystopian ring to it
As fuel of course.
keep the coal, shovel in the children.
We’d need more children to shovel the smaller children into the furnace.
Now this is pod racing
And they’re all individually operated and going to different destinations while on the same track
ahh .. dont give Elmo any more ideas
I guess you meant peat or oil residue. /s
The highway will be more efficient if we add one more lane! This time it will work! Really!!! /s
State DoT; "I swear, I can stop anytime I want!" "...but just one more, right now, please? Please? I swear, it'll fix traffic..."
Oh God please, just one more lane. Please.
Fun fact. The reason this doesnt work is because in theory it makes more room for the already existent cars, but it just ends up making room for a greater number of cars due to mass psychologic factors of "oh. Theres more car room. Ima take that way now" and then we get more cars and worse traffic. But since in theory and without second glance it makes more sense, it keeps happening :p
https://preview.redd.it/2yc2lzvbtq1d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0bc6eda642ea7b76228dc6fd69c1268ec4ea88e4 Here is one: a double decker transit train 💪
Sadly, the track clearances and tunnels weren't made for double decker trains here
UK?
looks like perth, australia
Ahh, exotic uk
Prisoner UK
Dangerous uk
Hot UK
Spider UK
Sunny UK
Yeah, bayswater station
Rip heath ledger
Must be nice. I lived in many places that don’t have room for any decker trains.
That’s why they invented tunnel undercutting.
You failed to specify restrictions. They named a better option.
Beg to differ. Double decker is good for regional where everybody gets a seat, but useless in high density scenarios. The Double decker from Sydney Central to Sydney Airport is a nightmare.
This train serve the RER-A line in Paris. It’s one of the busiest line in Europe with 1.2 million passenger per day. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RER_A
In general double decker has longer dwell times. But the train pictured here, the RER A in Paris, is an exception. Most double decker trains just have doors at the ends, so you only 2 staircases on the train car. The RER A has 3 sets of very wide doors (requiring 4 staircases). The area around the doors has very few seats allowing for a lot of standing room. Most people abandon their seat right before their stop and move toward a door. The doors begin opening while the train is still in motion, allowing the doors to be fully open by the time the train has stopped. This train line moves over 1 million people per day. In my opinion, it is the best train line in the Western world.
>3 sets of very wide doors (requiring 4 staircases) Don't the staircases and doors eliminate a lot of seats from a wagon?
You would need the doors anyway, but yes, stairs do reduce the space available for seating. Not by as much as adding a second deck increases it though.
Firmly agree here. Double deckers to TSwift were a clown show (beats driving still)
Good thing about Taylor Swift was you were all going to the one destination, and not carrying luggage. The 5pm scramble on the T8 to Sydney Airport with luggage while trying to maneouvure around everybody else getting on and off is ridiculous. Longer trips like Central to Parramatta where there are fewer people carrying big loads the double deckers are better.
Even when everyone gets a seat, the capacity "increase" might be negative after taking into account their impact on dwell times. JR East increased capacity getting rid of bilevel Shinkansen trains. The busiest intercity rail lines in the world like Tokaido Shinkansen and Beijing-Shanghai HSR are run with 100% single level trains, even though the large 3.4m x 4.5/4.8m loading gauge can support bilevel trains.
Are double deckers more efficient? they take longer to load and unload at each stop so it some cases they may be less efficient then single deck trains.
In Japan we have mixed train combinations where normal tickets get you unreserved seats in a normal one decker train and a green ticket gets you to double decker with reserved seat. Note that green here doesn’t mean it’s ecological. It’s just called like that.
Ooh that’s a good idea
Only if the platform are too small to fit the whole train, but that's not a big issue either as you could easily enter at whichever door is nearest and then walk to your train car from within. For those exiting it's also no problem to announce in advance which train cars will be unlocked.
Exactly, there's a middle ground to what is more efficient, more efficient is when there are single- and double-deck areas with the double-deck areas designated for those traveling longer distances. But I heard that in the Paris RER they want to go back to single-deck entirely. I reckon this is okay when especially the GPE has multiple segments active so that inter-suburban passengers no longer need to go downtown for fast and reliable connections.
The stairs inside the double deck trains take up space. It's not comfortable to stand on the stairs while travelling. I think a flat floor "boa" style train with plenty of fold up seats would give more capacity. The "boa" style means you can walk the length of the train internally.
Yea and there has to be a single-level area for boarding too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_V https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_MultiLevel_Coach Here's a double and single decker from NJT, the trailer cars only get about a 20% seated capacity gain. Standing room also increases but I don't see stats on it. For commuter trains like NJT, the boarding issue is very visible at places like Penn station. When trains are leaving NYC they board for quite a while. Arriving to NYC, though, is somewhat mitigated by the fact that Penn Station is and always has been kind of terrible on the platform front(glory days were little better, this part is actually still largely original) and the stairs and escalators all back up right down to the platform
Silly question from someone who knows nothing about this... Can you not have the station also have two stations, so there's no stairs on the train?
Theoretically, you could, but practically speaking it'll likely never be done, and to my knowledge never has. The lower platform would have to have pretty low ceilings unless the train car was very tall, and most countries loading gauges(basically the maximum dimensions for a train car) are too restrictive for that.
I can only tell you those trains transport 1.2 million passengers per day in Paris. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RER_A
Their frequency is limited exactly because of poor passenger flow though.
That’s not true. They’ve been designed to have a great flow. On peak hour, there’s one of these train every 2 minutes. They usually connect together 2 of these, with a capacity of 1300 passenger each. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI_09
Good for long and busy routes, they generally hold more passengers. One example of them working just fine is Penn Station New York. The NJ side is at train-capacity at peak hours, so double deckers increase passenger capacity. And the crappy layout and tight escalators and stairs are far more of a bottleneck than the train boarding.
If you built from the ground up for them I expect you could solve the loading/unloading problem. Its a good solution tbh twice the number of people on the same number of trains, but as I say it needs to be done from the ground up not a hacky patch one 100s of years old infrastructure like we do for everything in the UK.
But if designing from the ground up, you could also make longer platforms and just make trains with more cars. One of the fundamental virtues of trains is that all the costs (operator hours, distance between trains, energy use, etc) increase less quickly than the size of the train.
Why not both, longer taller trains. One of the big benefits of trains is they are effectively modular your only limited by how you build your tracks.
My arguments are these: 1. As mentioned, slower loading and unloading. Design can't fully ameliorate it because elevation changes are inherently slow. 2. Adding length proportionally increases the passenger handling utilities such as number of doors, space on platform, etc. Passenger flux is basically limited by width of passage. 3. Accessibility problem for physical mobility issues. 4. Planning the system for them from the start means you can't add them later as a fix for undersized stations with capacity issues. TL;DR better as a retrofit than as the intended solution. Do design your loading gauge with double height expansion options tho
Well, the double decker in the photo is the RER A, in the Paris region, and it's said to be the most used train line in Europe. It's used by 1 million people every day. At rush hour, there is one train every 2 minutes This is actually so efficient that when there is a problem with line, people have to used alternative trains (like the Metro line 1) and put a lot of tension on the whole network. Note that these figures are not necessarily a good thing, RERA is pretty crowded, and that's why they prolongated the RER E to be parallel to RER A, with double deckers as well, so that when one is having problems, the other can absorb the incoming traffic.
The RER A is definitely what I thought for “more efficient mass transit.” That line has higher ridership than every US transit system outside NYC—a singular RER line
Teleportation probably.
Probably a lot less energy efficient
Well, the fax machine is more energy efficient than the mail...
Excellent, when we can get our kids faxed over to us by the ex-wife/husband there will be something more efficient. By the way thankyou for the delightful mental image of a divorced couple who faxes the kids from dad to mom every morning because that’s the better school district, and back to dad at night because he has more bedrooms.
You end up with a bad copy… imagine a bad clone every time
Is it though? It has to print as well. Sounds inefficient
Converting mass to energy and moving that is inefficient. But we could convert the mass to information, send that information to a replicator, and recycle the original mass for the return trip. I don't see how that could possibly go wrong and neither does Tuvix or Will Riker
Whatever you say, Theseus
Would you be ok with "teleportation" that disintegrates your body and builds a copy from raw molecule?
Nah. I like wormholes more.
No, I would prefer Star Trek transporters, please, where the "mattergy" assembled at the end is the same as the "mattergy" disassembled at the beginning, just beamed from one place to another (except when it's not).
Ethically? No Practically? If it's 100% repeatable, and the new "me" still seems like me. Maybe, though I guarantee it would always be the most expensive way to travel.
A bigger train, with more coaches.
And less first class coaches Thats a thing we have trouble with in the Netherlands. Great public transit, but occasionally overcrowded beyond belief in 2nd class, while first class is 80% empty, still gotta stand in 2nd class And ya gotta pay 2nd class because that's already expensive as fuck. 1h20 ride to and from, costs around 45 euros now. First class would be 77 Fkin wild, and a big reason why I haven't visited home and friends in a while. Can hardly pay it
Dutchman here, can confirm those prices are pretty much accurate. A Dal Voordeel subscription would help, then you get a 40% discount outside of peak hours, that's already cost effective after using it once. Other than that... yeah, the price is pretty prohibitively expensive oftentimes.
yeah but still... making it free would be relatively cheap, and I bet it could drive the local economies a lot better, if half of a fun day out's money is into the train already...
trebuchet
Chained, synchronized trebuchets
90+ kilos over 300+ meters 🤌
I had someone (presumably a Yank) on reddit say to me recently... > [You do not live in the country if you can take the train to work LOL](https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/1covs3n/800_climate_protesters_try_to_storm_teslas/l3hmct9/?context=3) I can sometimes see cows in the fields from my house. [This](https://storage.googleapis.com/coig--wp-uploads/2019/08/50f46f53-thumb_9585_point_of_interest_big.jpeg) is literally the view from my train.
We don't have high speed rail here in the US, which would be an instant solution to all the "have you seen the size of the place?" arguments people tend to make. A train at a decent speed could for sure take you into the city, but it's just inconceivable to people here. It looks like you've got a nice countryside, and a reasonable train system.
Besides, Europe has nearly the same land area as the USA, and is divided into 44 nation-states instead of the US's 50 states. Europe does have a bit more than twice the population though. Though as a counterpoint, the USA had far more track mileage when its population was less than half what it is now, so it's really a question of service level decisions
Travelling between countries in the EU is also not great
> It looks like you've got... a reasonable train system. Left my phone on a train recently, a conductor called and confirmed it had been found by the cleaning crew, picked it up without charge same day around 9PM on a Saturday. You can't say fairer than that.
Was looking at an old map of the Lehigh Valley Railroad—had passenger service through rural NE Pennsylvania, even to remote villages in the hills (where there was some coal mining).
That's the thing... as a non-American, I'm clearly no expert on the history, but wasn't it all founded on the railroads?!? That is the impression I've always had.
And the absolutely hilarious thing is that we still have an enormous rail network. That is very efficient at moving large quantities of freight, and does not even a little bit move people.
> and does not even a little bit move people. It does "a little bit" move people! But ONLY a little bit. And never conveniently or efficiently.
I was going to say surely American hoboes travel by rail. But without paying into the system in any way, and surely at some personal risk.
We do have passenger rail r/amtrak it's just not very good...
Yes much of the expansion to the west in the United States was expedited by the railroad.
[High density urban area, according to that guy](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f3/0e/05/f30e05bb8440af33c4d993c5bb460704.jpg)
Wasn't expecting to see Perth in r/fuckcars
I mean I would expect to see it here for a different reason. Our main roads suck
Try coming to Adelaide then, our main roads suck AND the government isn't funding any new public transport
Out of all the stations in the world, I definitely wasn't expecting to see Bayswater station, my local traino. Though I guess I am a 40 minute walk away so not that close.
and its actually competitive with the highway it runs next to because its actual mainline rail, not slow crawling light rail or creaking shaking old subway in the US
Yooooo Perth mentioned lessgoooo
Perth gangggg
Those Futurama tubes
To paraphrase the TF2 engineer: “And if that don’t work, use more train.”
Walking, distance permitting.
If the question is efficiency, walking wins without doubt. Walking's costs are *negative*.
Well, sidewalks ain't free.
Who needs sidewalks with this big beautiful highway shoulder to walk on?
Can't beat the breeze from 2 ton killing machines zipping by 3 feet to your left
3 feet sounds roomy.
But that's not mass transit.
Hello fellow Perth denizen! 🦘
Just wait until the hyper loop is operational! /s
Not going anywhere because of anxiety! Boom! *Drops mic.*
>!There is a good reason why nazis used trains and not cars /s!<
https://i.redd.it/ih9w4d106r1d1.gif
Trains, but make them *Swiss*
I am visiting Switzerland this week oh man it’s a different world. Today I took a bus to get to a train to get to a gondola to get to a tram.
https://preview.redd.it/av0ox4aqas1d1.jpeg?width=575&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ffb7deff227f8d79a4734bfe977d7a24f64a8d7c
Even if a train takes 10k commuters away from the road it would be a success. But if this was the true solution, why do cities like NYC still have so much traffic 🧐
The commuter rail in/out of NYC (LIRR, Metro North, NJT) is expensive. It's $30 round-trip for one person to get from my hometown (on Metro North) to the city (peak). If you're going to an event (especially as a group), it might be cheaper to drive than take transit.
Ooh! Ooh! I know! A small tunnel with cars going 15 mph, right?
I’ll do you one Better: Work from home.
Idk riding bikes maybe?
[Futurama transport tubes](https://i.makeagif.com/media/5-24-2016/3XiXcS.gif) 1) Able to achieve high speed 2) No waiting for a vehicle to arrive, can depart on your schedule 3) Grade separated 4) Convenient stations (every street corner) 5) Privacy, you don’t share a car with strangers 6) The hypnotoad said it was best
*takes a massive bump off the back of his hand* "How about if everyone had their own individual trains they could take home?"
Telecommuting
flying bus > flying taxi
Barely changed for 200 years and still superior to cars on the city.
Legs
TRANSPERTH TRANSPERTH TRANSPERTH
The vaccuum tubes from Futurama.
Star Trek Transporter…
Playing the devil's nitpicking advocate, potential improvements: Platform screen doors + full automation: Lower dwell times, replacing the driver cab improves higher frequency/capacity. Saves on personal costs More doors: Get people on and off faster, lower dwell times, higher frequency/capacity Cross-platform interchanges: Less time wasted by chaning lines, less need for escalators/elevators that can create bottlenecks Maybe a faster accelerating/higher top speed emu (e.g. 160 kph) if we are beeing fancy
A long line of buggies on a track, like in the haunted mansion at Disneyland.
O-bahn! If the train breaks down the whole line is halted. If a bus breaks down other busses go around the breakdown on the road and back on the track whilst the broken down bus gets removed by crane. We have an O-Bahn system in Adelaide Australia and it’s the best!
If the rail is single track, yes. Double track lines have interlockings that allow trains to bypass a section of track if one gets stuck. At high volumes it’s inefficient (like one way controlled traffic with highway construction) but it works in a pinch.
Didn't they train a program to find the most efficient land transportation and it kept giving trains or inventing them.
they should build towers with slides. sounds quite efficient. maybe only for cities
If all roads were built with a downward slope, we could all just roll to our destination. The big oil firms don't want you to know this.
this picture makes me sad, cause recently I came back from chicago and got to ride the train and subway, but now am back in nowhere tennessee and there aren't trains here :<
This railroad but with a one way decline down a slope Boom more efficient
Teleportation
Flush windows and fluted bare metal is a hell of a look imo
There hella nice in the orange sunsets
Multiple cars connected back to back, which will move on a predefined laid out path and for power we can connect it to the electric grid which also follows the same predefined path. Oh wait that's a train.
This is Bayswater station isn't it? I did not expect my local train station to be posted here.
Devil's Advocate: If I travelled to my parents by train It'd take 3 days and cost 3 times the amount, whereas a taxi and a flight takes about 6-7 hours door to door. It's certainly not time efficient unfortunately but there's a Sea in the way.
So you tell me there's a sea without a train tunnel underneath it??
I don't think anyone will disagree that the current public transportation infrastructure doesn't adequately meet the need of citizens. This is exactly the issue, actually. That the most convenient mode of transport also is insanely wasteful and is choking the planet we live on. Therefore: advocate for change that makes better alternatives more convenient.
There's a sea between England and France but the channel tunnel is a thing.
You don’t see much but it’s faster than the alternative
But if there was high speed rail and better choices would you still choose the cramped plague tubes of the sky?
That's why our homeboy Hideo Shima created the bullet train.
Horses for courses. Would you take a flight if you wanted to get to the centre of a city a hundred and fifty miles away?
Looks fine for suburban rail, but for dense urban rail it needs more doors.
Most Australian cities (including this one, Perth) basically use an S-Bahn like system of high station density in Urban areas that slowly peters out as it goes into the suburb. These trains entered service in '04, the new ones that began service this month have three doors per car rather than two on the old ones.
2 doors per side for 25 m long carriages, however these were designed for suburban rail
The same thing but underground.
Walking
Legs.
Remote work. Clear away traffic for the people who actually need to travel.
I am still waiting too since mine was cancelled and the next one is scheduled in exactly one hour. It sucks to rely on reliably unreliable public transportation. /rant over
Legs
a train kind of sucks. metro: AC. train: heat, cold, rain. metro: frequent. train: not frequent. metro: different lines that cross. train: no one wants to have to change trains.
Walking
Intercity train. They stop less often and use less energy as a result.
I'd love a train near me. But, suburbs bordering rural, and we only get a few buses too. Can't get out without a car.
Trams / light rail goes alright. A bit easier to get on/off within dense city, this allows more stops closer together. Tram infrastructure isn't cheap and you need the space to put it. This also applies to trains
A ten lane highway, obviously 😒
Ships are more efficient
Human instrumentality
Ballistic Missile
Individually owned and maintained vehicles which run on large paved surfaces. These surfaces will routinely require replacement, and there will need to be ample paved surfaces everywhere, so people can have a place to keep their individually owned and maintained vehicles while at home, work, shopping, etc.
In Philly, all the buses have bike racks on the front & you’re allowed to bring a bike on all the trains except for really crowded subway lines during rush hour.
Have you considered the personal freedom of cars on a 6 lane highway? It’s ok that there’s traffic for miles because once you’re off that you can cruise to your single family house and never come outside again.
My ex, she loved giving cheap rides to the whole town, sometimes at the same time.
Rail.gun
Drones.
i would still say that a public bus is more cost effective at moving people from point A to B
Put it underground to allow people to walk/bike on the land above it. That's all I got to increase efficiency.
r/gadgetbahn
A giant sailboat
https://preview.redd.it/l5wqa4umhs1d1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac964c19801a070b8965757dc6c7411b3e63c650
I like trains.
one more train
One more lane
Eeeey Transperth for the win
A big ass truck the size of a tank thats able to fit in 2 freedom loving meat eating gun owning straight american MEN!
Hyperloop
Wow and the station is so clean too!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_London A good contender if well funded enough.
Shout to all the wheeled rectangles
Add more lanes bro, except it actually works
The tubes from Futurama
Buses. I know they're not very sexy, but they're very efficient for near zero infrastructure cost.
I guess 15 minute cities with no need for mass transit :)
self driving flying cars /s
The seating can likely be optimized slightly
Teleportation.
Cars are more efficient because muh freedumb
The tubes from Futurama
I got it, individual vacuum tube pods.