Every 2 min 45sec (timing from door close to door close on next train) is pretty good on a line that operates like a subway but I wouldn't consider it incredible. Once you get into the sub-2 minute region that's where it's impressive with 90 seconds being the best.
@@realquadmoo @realquadmoo I was timing it from door close to door close as that gives a measurement for the headway that the line operates and the true frequency of the trains which you can then use to determine the capacity of the line. While you may only have to wait the door closed to door open time as a passenger, from a technical standpoint, what matters is the door close to door close time. The "90 second" time is from door close to door close averaged across multiple trains, so it includes boarding time as well. If we go by door close to door open, the best systems average between 55 and 65 seconds (including the time it takes for the trains to accelerate and decelerate). Since the door close to door open time doesn't take into account how long a train spends at the platform, you can't use it to measure how many trains you can cram down a section of track. Every 2 min 50 sec (2min 20 if the train didn't wait for so long at the platform) is nothing to scoff at and is on par with most other systems at 3 min, but the fact that the train dwells at the platform for an entire minute is not good for frequency! Here's a frequency comparison video for the London Underground's Victoria line: ua-cam.com/video/PJ0zk4MWCQY/v-deo.html And here's one for the Vancouver Skytrain during COVID: ua-cam.com/video/rfHkZP0ZNpo/v-deo.html&t
@@reggytwobit I'm not saying a 2 minutes 50sec headway is bad, I'm saying that compared to other systems, it's not particularly special. Systems that are able to achieve 3 minute headways are pretty common around the world, but that doesn't mean the frequency is bad. What is impressive, however, are systems that have headways in the sub 2 minute range. Systems that reach 30+ trains per hour (2 minute headway) are less common which makes them more special, but the technology required to reach those headways (in terms of signalling and the trains themselves), and how a system is still able to maintain those frequencies despite hundreds of people entering the platform every few minutes, people holding the doors, trains that are full to the brim, hundreds of people crowding the platform, etc. is what makes a system impressive. In short, every 2 to 3 minutes is standard, but the standard is pretty good.
Every 2 min 45sec (timing from door close to door close on next train) is pretty good on a line that operates like a subway but I wouldn't consider it incredible. Once you get into the sub-2 minute region that's where it's impressive with 90 seconds being the best.
Time it from door close to door open
It’s 1 minute 50 seconds. Literally 20 seconds away from what you’re suggesting, it’s perfectly fine.
How is a 2 minute frequency remotely close to bad
@@realquadmoo @realquadmoo I was timing it from door close to door close as that gives a measurement for the headway that the line operates and the true frequency of the trains which you can then use to determine the capacity of the line. While you may only have to wait the door closed to door open time as a passenger, from a technical standpoint, what matters is the door close to door close time. The "90 second" time is from door close to door close averaged across multiple trains, so it includes boarding time as well. If we go by door close to door open, the best systems average between 55 and 65 seconds (including the time it takes for the trains to accelerate and decelerate). Since the door close to door open time doesn't take into account how long a train spends at the platform, you can't use it to measure how many trains you can cram down a section of track. Every 2 min 50 sec (2min 20 if the train didn't wait for so long at the platform) is nothing to scoff at and is on par with most other systems at 3 min, but the fact that the train dwells at the platform for an entire minute is not good for frequency!
Here's a frequency comparison video for the London Underground's Victoria line:
ua-cam.com/video/PJ0zk4MWCQY/v-deo.html
And here's one for the Vancouver Skytrain during COVID:
ua-cam.com/video/rfHkZP0ZNpo/v-deo.html&t
@@reggytwobit I'm not saying a 2 minutes 50sec headway is bad, I'm saying that compared to other systems, it's not particularly special. Systems that are able to achieve 3 minute headways are pretty common around the world, but that doesn't mean the frequency is bad. What is impressive, however, are systems that have headways in the sub 2 minute range. Systems that reach 30+ trains per hour (2 minute headway) are less common which makes them more special, but the technology required to reach those headways (in terms of signalling and the trains themselves), and how a system is still able to maintain those frequencies despite hundreds of people entering the platform every few minutes, people holding the doors, trains that are full to the brim, hundreds of people crowding the platform, etc. is what makes a system impressive. In short, every 2 to 3 minutes is standard, but the standard is pretty good.
Woah! Electric Train?
Yeah!