Check out Urban Caffeine's store for more cool shirts like the one I'm wearing in this video: shop.urbancaffeine.com/collections/urbanism-transit-tshirts
Hello guys, neeraj here! (The guy who shot rrts) I am open to questions which are not extremely deep in the transportation-field. Also, I suggest people living in delhi-ncr to give RRTS a visit. I am pretty sure you would be surprised how great everything is.
Yes iam from delhi and i want to visit it, iam just waiting for it to be completed fully to meerut Spending time and money to get thier nd only having a short aint worth it
@@kennedyspace1159 agreed, it would be very exciting once completed also would be probably a bit closer to your location. Currently, you either need to take some shitty bus or auto from vaishali, no direct metro connectivity from first station of rrts.
I live in Delhi but i am originally from Uttarakhand and i am waiting for it to be completed till Meerut so i can go to my hometown faster. Hopefully it will happen soon. Can't wait.
High Speed Metros can act like suburban rail and urban express rail at the same time, where the metro can go very very fast but connect various destinations. GO Transit and the TTC need to build more high-speed metros and regional rail instead of peak-hour commuter rail and slow legacy metros. This is because Toronto's geography and urban sprawl call for a fast system with a flexible route.
True that. Think of the possibility of riding say from Barrie to downtown Toronto in not much more time that it takes to go from Kennedy to Kipling on the current TTC subway. And, a GO Transit high-speed metro, working in conjunction with high-speed rail in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor could really link up so much of southern Ontario.
Note regarding the RRTS in Delhi - It also becomes a conventional metro corridor when it enters the state of Uttar Pradesh, where it will become parellel to the Meerut Metro, i.e. both the RRTS and the Meerut Metro will run on the same tracks. While the RRTS will only use 4-5 stations after entering Uttar Pradesh, the Meerut metro will consist of other stations not included as RRTS stations. The rolling stock for the Meerut Metro is like a conventional metro rolling stock with operational speeds of 80 km per hour, manufactured by Alstom in India. Basically it means that while acting as a high speed metro overall, it becomes an express metro after entering Uttar Pradesh.
@@RMTransit YEs they have built it near the stations, rrts will use the main line while the metro will use loop line, and i think the rrts service frequency is 15mins for now, the scheduling will be done as such to provide no interfence to RRTS
@@zhappy yes, a strecth is funtional, other parts need time to finish the stations and last stages of finishing work like signalling, OHE etc i think the whole line will be opened in early parts of 2025
I recently visited Japan and I thought the exact same thing. I especially loved the option to book unreserved seats, so then you can just board any train.
It's surreal to ride the outer sections of the DC metro. Especially the Orange and Silver lines. I took the Silver out to Dulles and it was so nice to see the metro going faster than the cars on the highway
@@car_tar3882 I could see WMATA doing that, tho not in my lifetime. I expect to see one more major expansion. Most likely the Bloop. Personally, I think WMATA should focus on the inside beltway and the first level suburbs. I want to see MARC and VRE expand into regional rail. Hopefully, with the Long Bridge project going forward, we can see MARC to Alexandria. VRE to Richmond and out towards Front Royal also seems to be on the table, looking at VPRA's acquiring of Rights of Way. Now we need to get MDOT and MARC to get Camden Line weekend service. I went to see an O's game, and MARC would have been so much easier than dealing with the Baltimore Light rail and Amtrak
I think Guangzhou Metro Line 18 and Line 22 are the best examples of high-speed metro. They are planned and constructed as both a suburban rail and a metro. They use suburban trains with metro interiors. Stations spaced slightly close together in Guangzhou and far apart outside of it. They are planned to reach other cities (as far as Zhuhai and Shenzhen). They run almost fully automatically (GoA3). And they run with Local and Express service (no express on line 22 at the moment as it's too short but have provision for that)
The Guangzhou Line 18 and 22 are magnificent and top-notch service. However, walking distance in between is too far, more than 500m walking distance, even there are people mover escalater which caused the transit experience lowered.
@@hanhoco1 If you mean the transfer btw them and other lines, I agree. I tried those transfers before when I visited Guangzhou and they are quite terrible
Delhi-Meerut Rapid Rail is similar, when the line enters Meerut, it has stations for both metro and Rapid rail. The metro uses the same line but rapid rail only has a few stops in Meerut city while Meerut metro has frequent stops
don‘t forget highspeed Regional Trains. Here in Germany we have a few of them like the IRE200 from Wendlingen to Ulm with a top speed of 200km/h on the highspeedline where ICE are only 50km/h faster. Other Routes are from Munich to Nürnberg or Nürnberg to Erfurt, all the use parts of ICE highspeed lines :)
Underrated comment! How often is Germany's ICE system criticized for not having ICEs completely separated from other rail traffic? That there's also this other side, that you could also have regional traffic sped up so that it flows nicely together with high speed rail trains is often overlooked. Sure, more tracks would be even better, however I'm pretty sure, many towns along those HSR lines with regional stations don't want to miss their high speed regional connections anymore, even if that means that those trains sometimes have to wait at those regional stations to be overtaken by the ICE. Those stations and those regional trains would not exist without the HSR line.
This is actually already kinda common in Sweden with train systems like Öresundståg, Västtåg, Norrtåg and Mälartåg running on lines meant for high speed rail to speed up travel time. their top speed of 200km/ (180km/h currently for Öresundståg but the new gen trains will be able to atleast run in 200km/h) makes the trains fast enough to not block high speed services. Even the new high speed lines Stockholm-Linköping and Gothenburg-Borås are planned to have these high speed regional trains share tracks with high speed trains. A good example of an already existing line using this approach is Västkustbanan between Malmö-Gothenburg, where Öresundståg and high speed trains shares tracks. I personally think the term "interregional express train" fits better as that basically explains more what type of train it is than "high speed regional train". You could also argue that the Kodama services on the Japanese Shinkansen system is a type of high speed regional train due to the short stop spacing they have.
RRTS trains are designed for 180kmph but capped at 160kmph, the exclusive coach has vending machines inside them which is quite continent considering that Delhi to Meerut or vice a versa takes an hour and Meerut metro will run on the same tracks of RRTS when Meerut section is completed.
São Paulo made it in early 2000's. CPTM L11 line is a former suburban railway converted to semi "high-speed" metro where trains can reach top speed up to 100 km/h
@@RMTransit CPTM L11 sounds more like Philly's PATCO line, which, being from Philly myself--the PATCO line is a kitbash of three existing rail lines: (1) the Locust Street Subway, one of a few parts lying around from Philly's largely unrealized subway dreams; (2) the Broadway subway, which connected to the former and crossed the Ben Franklin Bridge, terminating at a stop at Camden (NJ) Broadway, now known as Walter Rand Transportation Center. Historically these two lines worked to bring suburban Jersey commuters into the city. In the 1960s, PATCO planners added element number three to the mix: (3) the former Philadelphia-Reading Seashore Lines main line from Camden to Lindenwold. PATCO is thus a former mainline railway line converted to a subway line, which uses rolling stock in subway loading gauge but signaling and power systems capable of handling extended journeys at interurban speeds. In a way this is a good demonstration of how S-Bahn technologies and Reece's high speed metros differ. The goal of S-Bahn systems, whether they're called that, S-Togs, RERs, Cercanias, (much of) the Tokyo Metro, or Thameslink or the Elizabeth Line, are to link existing suburban rail networks together. The advantage high speed metros offer occurs in cities--today mainly in South and East Asia, but tomorrow likely in Africa, Latin America, and the Sunbelt--where the entire regional railway network more-or-less needs to be built from scratch, and can therefore be built to a single unified technical standard instead of rolling stock having to mix-and-match different technical standards together. That said, if your metro region has a lot of extant rail alignments it still makes more sense to link them together in an S-Bahn or RER-type network--like what Toronto's doing--than it does to build new alignments from scratch.
Honestly the rrts system is probably the biggest boon for Delhi to NCR commuters It should be made in every major city in India connecting to it's satellite cities
I wish I had better devices to shoot it, my 200$ phone didn't capture it the way I thought in my brain. Please give it a visit if you live in delhi-ncr, its worth it. (Yes, I am neeraj)
At this point us Aussies and Canadians are probably better off doing our long distance train journeys with Kangaroos and Moose respectively! We'll probably see teleportation implemented before we see HSR in either country.
Don’t worry, us New Yorkers will probably never see the advancements that Canadians and Australians have made in their metros. That’s one thing you guys have us beat in by a mile.
@@RMTransit You and me both Reece! While I obviously can't speak on Canada's behalf, I think we both know the track record (pun intended 😜) and likelihood of true HSR ever being built on the Aussie east coast. In my opinion, building a network in Canada makes much more sense purely because of the size of the population and the distances covered. A HSR network servicing the Canadian heartland could actually become profitable in time if done right.
Excellent video idea. I was just mulling over this yesterday when stumbling over an old document calling Sydney Metro "Sydney Rapid Transit". Probably important to nominate the 3 things that create speed: 1. Top speed 2. Average acceleration 3. Dwell times It's the 3rd one that makes Sydney Metro's new timetable quicker than the old Sydney Trains timetable on the SAME line, EVEN for the express service that skips stops - which Sydney Metro never does. That's thanks to more doors and fewer seats (and no stairs). But don't undersell the 2nd one - have you seen the travel time improvements on British Rail with the new locomotives that accelerate harder? They've been able to stop using tilt trains in some cases because the top speed wasn't as relevant in a winding-road situation; the engines pull harder and they're still making less time than the old tilt trains despite having a lower top speed (or top speed in the curves: TBC). This slow-fast-slow-fast experience is sort of analogous to stop-start-stop-start, and we used to have single-deck trains in Sydney too, before 1994. But they were FAR slower at departing, and even the trains that we received in the 2010s (A sets and B sets) you can FEEL the kick of the acceleration more than everything that was made before 2010.
Back in the 1930s/40s, NYC realized close metro stops made the IRT lines (1/2/3/4/5/6 trains) too slow. That's why the IND lines (ex. A, C, E lines) were spaced farther apart, and it's why, if the Second Avenue Line is full built down the east side of Manhattan, it will act as an high-speed metro version of the Lexington Avenue Line.
IRT had lots of stops because of the population density along those IRT corridors. It was a necessity to build close stops so as to not overcrowd the platforms at those stations. The IND stations are farther apart, but some services are very redundant. The Grand Concourse line runs parallel to the 4 in the Bronx, and offers nearly the same amount of stops.
@@Jorge-lh6px This is because Mayor John Hylan, who proposed the IND system, wanted it to compete with the IRT and BMT, eventually replacing those lines. The Grand Concourse line was supposed to replace the Jerome Avenue line. And I wouldn't say it's "redundant", since it takes some pressure off the 4, which is still very much crowded during rush hours.
@@nasifsiddiquey8867 Increasing frequency along the four would be the best way relieve the overcrowding issue. Headways can vary during rush hour, with often ten minute headways for arguably the most densely populated area of the Bronx. It doesn’t help that the B/D also has such bad headways.
@@RMTransit Not sure about exact speed, I just know that the planning around newer subway stations in the U.S. is about speed (ex. LA has a good bit of distance between its D Line stops being built)
Yeah Rrts is fastest metro system in India currently with 160 as top speed. India is expanding it's metros in quite good speed. We are also confident on our Bullet train system which is currently under construction 🚧🚧🚧
This is what the Grand Paris Express aims to be right? Huge distances between stops, fully automated, and higher speeds than the intramuros Paris Metro. Also, what about some lines of the Madrid Metro which have some pretty long distances between stations?
Tokyo's Tsukuba Express opened in 2005 with a top speed of 130 km/hr, and a rate of accelleration you can feel as a passenger,. Its stations are either elevated or underground, and all have platform screen doors. This was a decade earlier than any of the Shenzen Metro lines mentioned. Also worth mentioning is Perth's northern line, which opened in 1993 and has a top speed of 130 km/hr, although its accelleration doesn't feel as fast as the Tsukuba Express. Two underground stations were opened on this line in 2007.
I feel like your definition of suburban rail is just that "it already exists, and it's mostly old". What is the technical difference between a brand new suburban rail network, built from scratch, and a brand new high-speed metro system, built from scratch? Is it just the metro style seating layout? Or is it that it goes through the city centre in a tunnel? If the Elizabeth Line was built from scratch and didn't use existing lines in the East and West of the city, would you then call it High Speed Metro? It just feels like you're inventing a category for the sake of it. What am I missing?
Suburban rail is mainline rail, not such technical definition needs to be followed for a metro. You can build a new totally independent line and it makes sense. The Elizabeth line wouldn’t have not used the existing lines east and west of the city, but if it did and everything was like the leg to Abbey Wood I’d call it high speed metro sure, but the design and planning wouldn’t be as they are for the line of today.
In most countries fast trains always need to follow mainline rail regulations because light rail is limited to a certain top speed. North america is really the odd one out there with excessive heavy rail regulations making it necessary to have a third category for subways that are not heavy (mainline) rail by law.
"The flexibility of metros with the speed of suburban rail" feels like overselling it a bit. Legacy suburban rail lines had the same flexibility when they were first being built, and in many places they're built either on viaducts or on cheaper embankments just like these high-speed metros are. If you ignore the history and only focus on current operations, then the Copenhagen S-trains have a bunch of similarities with these high-speed metros, albeit at a smaller scale due to the city being smaller, and I'd argue the same goes for the RER. They're not so different, the difference is mainly whether the line was built first and had city grow around it, or if the city grew first and had the rail line built afterwards. Also, the high-speed metros do make a tradeoff - higher top speeds mean longer stop spacings, which also means less coverage and longer last-mile trips. This is often only a worthwhile tradeoff for large cities where there's already a more traditional metro with tighter stop spacing. High-speed metros are really just logical way to build a brand-new commuter rail line today in places without legacy infrastructure.
I would like to see analysis of how many metro lines are maxing out their acceleration/deceleration in terms of passenger comfort, and could benefit from increased top speeds.
It's also the same reason why light rail is so popular in the US because building a full sized mainline through already built up regions is already a PITA and the only options are to either run the trains on the streets (taking a toll on speed, doesn't work in every country, curves are guaranteed to be sharp) or build the tracks above or below the roads (which is expensive, doesn't solve the curve problem if elevated).
@@betaich Its not, S-Bahns can have level crossings, they also have heavy interlining so the core section has much more frequency than most outer branches.
Being able to just drop a line almost anywhere is a really big deal that I wouldn't undersell. I get where you're coming from, but being able to add lines post hoc has a ton of value, because development does not always happen where its planned or in the way its planned.
The GTX actually looks more like a metro than the Chinese high speed metros because it has more standing room. I do wonder what the safety regs will be like, since one of the lines apparently interlines with the tail-end of the SRT high speed line into Seoul. That being said, I was surprised to learning that people are able to stand on some higher speed rail like the Arlanda express. I knew that some 160 km/h trains in China allowed standing because of how high the capacity numbers are, but did not expect it for 200 km/h trains.
In Asia, most metros are large (coach width), about 2.9 m at minimum, the same as a regional train. If they don't build a regional network based on interconnecting existing suburban train branches, they can build new lines, with train length based on suburban trains, but with metro technology if not automated metro tech, combining both concepts with the objectives of average speed and pax/hr/direction. That works really well for a large city sprawling far away from the center. The line can be divided into three parts: two suburban and one central. Central stations can be built either with double island platforms of with bypass tracks to allow some express capability while stopping at important stations and suburban stations will be more spaced. There can be at least two kind of services: Central, stopping at the edge of the dense city, Express, with all stops served in the suburbs and a few stops in the center, but if the infrastructure allows it, you can add two more types of services: the super express, going from a large far away suburb to the other with express stops in the center; skipping most of the other stops, suburbs included or semi center service, omnibus in the center but not stopping in the intermediate suburbs. Possibilities are limitless, however the more types of services, the more difficult to comprehend it will be. That's why China seems to love the central lines with seperate extentions that later become express services when the center part is ready, making both a metro and a RER type line, much like in Japan. A metro must serve the metropolis, it cannot just go from Point A to Point B at top speed without stopping anywhere else. That being said, running trains faster for only a few trains per line must come at a cost, power consumption. It may not be viable for every city. Even with its 120 kph speed, the Grand Paris Express will outpace most of the RER in terms of average speed. (except for the very far parts of lines C, D and E that can reach over 130-140 kph). Most of the central RER networks runs at 90-110 kph. In that regard, GPX is a high speed metro, to the scale of Paris, it doesn't need to reach 180 kph.
S-Bahns use regular mainline for the most part and only has a strategic central tunnel; these metro lines do not operate on legacy mainlines. Similar to the difference between RER & Metro, except the metro lines are higher speed in this case.
@@hatedarkchain 100% exclusive r.o.w, okay thats true S-Bahns are allowed to have level crossings with barriers. But they are not slower class 423 used in Munich, Frankfurt and Köln can reach up to 140Kmh and they actually do it.
It's worth noting that 120-130 km/hr metro systems were still first seen in the US, with the DC metro topping out at 75 mph and BART topping out at 80 mph.
Your definition maps perfectly onto S-Bahn type systems as well. Those high speed metro's don't have trains that are any more compact or flexible than most S-Bahn trains. There is no difference in your definition other than age and not using existing infrastructure. Why define a new category when an existing one covers it already?
That’s not true, S-Bahn trains can operate on mainlines, the same is not true for metro trains. They also *do* operate on the national rail network. S Bahn systems also typically feature heavy track sharing, which also isn’t typical of metros. So no, this existing category does not cover!
@@RMTransit Many S-Bahn systems have very limited track sharing and quite a few Metro systems interline with Mainline. There are also S-Bahn systems that cannot share track at all due to not being compatible with Mainline systems. You may be defining a distinct category. I'd argue however that it isn't really a very useful one.
Hong Kong represent!!! We did it back in 1998 with the Tung Chung Line 6:06 that goes up to 130km/h and a frequency terrible by Hong Kong standards of…6 minutes. We needed it because our new airport was located insanely far away and we just built “sprawl” there as well, which we can’t half-arse with bus connections (car dependency was out of the question)
Tokyo and Kansai regions have tons of operators that do 90, 110, 130 km/hr for long stretches and no one calls them rapid metro for the simple reason that there isnt the need to. Compare that to Seoul or say Beijing where there are many metro lines but traversing from one side of city to the other is still a pain because of the low speed and the 6-8 car trains can't handle the demand. So you can see why they would look to a high speed alternative. Singapore's Cross Island line looks to address the same issue through longer spaced stations although the line itself does not go anywhere important.
@@alexhaowenwong6122 No express service exists in most of the metro lines in Seoul, even though they span multiple cities. Line 7 for example is 60km long but stops at all stations. Although it is technically possible to add express service, an entirely new high-speed line is cheaper hence the GTX plans were born. Although the GTX is in fact fast and a nice addition to Seoul's transit network, a lot of it would be unnecessary if the metro lines were built to accommodate express services, a waste of resources if you consider the whole picture...
There a polish company called nevomo who are planning on integrating maglev tracks onto regular railway, on there test run they demonstrate there maglev accelerating to 100km/h in 11 seconds, there main goal is to integrate maglev on inter city rail and increase the speed maximum by 72%, aka 300km/h on regular rail and 550km/h on high speed rail, they haven’t said anything about metros though
I’d say no, instead it’s a type of S-Train, perhaps the best example in Paris for a high speed metro (if you push the definition quite a bit) might be the new metro lines 15-18 (the Grand Paris Express’ new build lines)
Debatable. Trains are theoretically able to reach 140km/h (90mph) on some sections of the RER network (although not on all 5 lines), and "only" 100km/h (62mph) through the city centre. That's arguably fast enough to be considered. However, unlike the kind of lines/systems Reece seems to be suggesting, the RER is mostly *not* new-build. Line A was formed when RATP took over operation of two disconnected suburban rail lines, East and West of the city centre. The city centre tunnel (and its impressive stations) was the only real bit of new infrastructure. It's similar for lines C, D and E (which of course is still being built). However, I believe Line B was almost entirely new-build, so maybe that would count? There is certainly more of a case for the RER being classed as high-speed metro than (say) London's Elizabeth Line, as EL has to share track with other passenger trains to the West of London, whereas I think (at least under normal circumstances) even RER D does not share track with other suburban trains. But while I do sometimes use the phrase "Regional Express Metro" to describe the RER to people, I don't think it really qualifies as high-speed metro of the type Reece is describing.
2 місяці тому
I'd say it's a suburban railway (like Transillian) that crosses the city
One thing you didn't explore is the tradeoff between wider station spacing and access. Manhattan has a stop within blocks of any location. BART has effectively one stop for the core of Berkeley. The next stop north is in a residential area, and south is nearly in Oakland. So, unless you live close to those stops, you spend 15 - 25 minutes walking or taking a bus to get to BART, and the time saved by higher speed between stations is dwarfed by the longer commute time and inconvenience.
Thanks so much for the encouraging bit emphasizing the new increase in modularity to build out rail which means we will finally get a lot more rail phew. Great news…. I mean I would never know that info if I did not watch your vids. Because the news does little to let us know. Great journalism on your part. Kudos and many thanks to you and to your Patreons.
Hong Kong is an amazing mix of dense metro networks and high-speed. The HK Airport Express is perhaps one of the best in the world. I used to travel to Shenzhen for work each week and took the East Rail line up to Lo Wu, and those trains easily reached 140kmh. Having said that, Munich's S-Bahn lines are very similar in that sense. They operate mostly underground in the city centre and then at high-speed on the way in and out of town. Great video as always, thank you!
The berlin S-Bahn has a top-speed of 100kmh which is decently fast given its age of 100 years in 2024. Between Charlottenburg and Potsdamm the S7 runs through the city forest, avoiding residential areas and connecting the two places in what is eventually an express line (taking the S1 through the suburbs takes considerably longer). There is also the option of taking the RE trains between the two cities, cutting off a couple more minutes because of the skipped stops. I love multi-layered service availability like that and I think its the best way to spread demand equally and serve all 'levels efficiently. Separating these service levels into different services and networks de-clusters the whole service availability and increases reliability of the system (take NYC for a bad example of this) and I think more cities should think about multi-layered service networks. Thanks for reading!
The East Rail line in Hong Kong used to be regional, then electrified and grade separated into commuter rail in the 80s, increasing the speed, then trains retrofitted into suburban metro in the 2000s. I can see similar transformations for US commuter rails like Chicago Metra, if they are properly funded.
Most "high-speed metros" are newly built suburban trains at classical mainline speed (100mph/160kph). Commuter trains already do that all over the world (even in some American cities), the only difference being that they're not newly built. Which can hardly be a distinguishing factor for long, since all suburban rail was at one point newly built. Take the London and Greenwich Railway: When it was first built, it was followed no existing standards, it connected to no mainline network, and it was fully grade separated. It's a marketing thing. China could have called their new suburban lines "commuter rail" or "suburban rail" but that doesn't sound futuristic enough. I think it's pretty awesome that countries that have traditionally neglected commuter rail like China are warming up to the concept and if a glitzy new marketing term helps with that, then so be it.
This misses the point for a few reasons, mainline railways are *not* actually built all that frequently, and even when they are, they are not comparable to metro ROW in most cases. Suburban rail or “commuter rail” is distinct because again, it is tied to the standards required for operational on a national rail network - so you can’t have automation etc
@@RMTransit Preexisting standards exist simply because there is infrastructure that you want to connect to. When any city's first commuter railway was built, this was not a concern, it became a concern simply through expansion of the system and the passing of time, which will happen to any system. Imagine this: It's 2050 and there's a new worldwide standard for metro electrification different from what is used now. Shanghai wants to built an extension or branch to a high-speed metro line, by now several decades old. Do they 1) bite the bullet and use the older, obsolete standard for the sake of interoperability, thereby constraining themselves to the existing standards? Or do they 2) use the new standard and figure out a way for switching electrication during operation, like in Paris or Tokyo? In either case, any extension or branch is now unable to fulfill your definition of high-speed metro. Being new can't be a distinguishing factor if the passing of time continues to be a thing. If the only distinguishing factor that remains is the use of separate, dedicated trackage and distinct standards, what does that mean for the commuter railways that already operate on dedicated trackage with distinct track/loading gauges, electrification etc, like Copenhagen?
Reece, you mention that modern high speed metros are emerging in Asia, but you didn’t mention any in Japan. Does Japan have any in the works? If not, is this due to “too much legacy rail” like in Europe…?
The Japanese approach is a bit different where many metro trains interline with mainline services. The top speed usually isn't too impressive but express service patterns make up for that. That and metro lines tend to have longer stop spacing in general compared to most european systems.
Just a feedback- This video was more about whataboutery. Keep it specific and structure it in a way that educates people without randomly jumping from one point to the other.
This is how I see Sydney Metro. With a top-speed of 110km p/h, wide spacing and PSDs, the thing flies. Given how massive Sydney is (same size as Tokyo and Ile-de-France), it needs this high-speed system to connect the vast distances. And the new lines cut journey times nearly in half compared to the legacy DD system. We will soon (20yrs) have a truly world-class transport system: - Light-rail: Traditional inner-city role - Converrted train lines to metro: traditional metro with close spacing, above-groumd routes - New metro lines: high-speed, tunnelled metro connecting the whole city - DD Train lines: express services connecting the regions to the CBD and Parra via the four entry points into the Sydney basin High-speed rail: Newcastle to Wollongong creating a 6-city global economic hub Reece, are you coming down for the metro opening? The new line and stations look even better than GPE!
Sydney metro system architecture is based on Hong Kong MTR’s South Island line, and as the MTR has experience with high speed metros in the Tung Chung Line and Airport Express line, our future is pretty bright for trains. I’m actually graduating this year in mechatronics and I’m hoping to get into building more railways for Sydney!
@@RMTransitThat's true for the current line and the Western Sydney Airport line. However, Metro West is planned for 110km p/h as it will be 100% new track with generous station spacings. As I mentioned above, only our fully new-track lines will fit into this high-speed metro model. So while the top-speed still won't be THAT fast, obviously average speed is more important. It's here that the design characteristics of the new Sydney Metro lines will be genuinely high-(average) speed. The current line is 58kph and Metro West will beat that comfortably, so its average speed will be around 15kph faster than the RER A (47kph)! The speed will be necessary for Metro West as it will be the most important rail line in the country. After a couple of extensions, it will connect the three cities of Sydney, the first and third largest airports in the country, first and third largest CBDs, our two main sporting precincts, and the majority of our cultural sites and tourism attractions, as well as our high-speed rail hub (whenever we get around to building that).
I’m from dc, and our metro’s are pretty fast considering their blocky design. There’s a part between fort totten and Takoma park I like to call the “race track” since incoming and outgoing MARC trains get passed by the metro lol. When you get outside of DC, the metro turns into a suburban commuter line considering how far apart stations are. It’s interesting to see the transition take place
You are just amazing man. ❤ from India. Your hair is amazing too kinda like a toddler, smooth and silky. Keep it up. I watch your videos so much that I would even watch any other country's metro network through your channel for deep knowledge and your voice. Everything abt this channel is just extraordinary
Chinese regional rail ran by China Railways (CR) operate at 160km/h while HSR varies between 200 to 350kmh, with 400kmh on its way. The problem with Chinese rail is that the national CR uses CR standards different from China's national metro standards (the track gauge is the same, but loading gauges, signaling, electrification, train design, even running direction etc... are incompatible); additionally CR unlike Japan's JR is purely focused on regional services running with slow acceleration, far apart station spacings, and on dedicated CR infrastructure, refusing to mix in commuter rail services. Therefore its up to Chinese cities to locally build dedicated High Speed Metro corridors either using Metro standards or adopting some CR standard (what we call the Type-D Intercity Standard) and operating them independently from CR's regional rail systems
Metromare in Rome is one of the first examples of high speed metro. The stop spacing near the two termini in Rome and Ostia is similar to regular metro, while the central part in the suburbs has a wide stop spacing, and most of it is made at high speed. And also the RATP part of Paris RER A and B is high speed metro: these lines are completely segregated and indipendent from other traffic, and the stop spacing allows for long stretches at high speed.
While I do appreciate that you differentiate fast metro with regional rail, I think it is also true that PSDs are very normal in China and they were actually planning to do through-running for a lot of lines, that you mentioned. if I remember that correctly, some of the earliest pioneers of Intracity Rail (市域铁路 or fast metros) started as improvement projects of Conventional rails, and only became what it is today, because CR refused to cooperate
Imo, the spotlight should be shined on high speed regional trains. The Hauts-de-France region brought Calais, Arras and Dunkirk closer to the regional capital, Lille, by operating TGV trains on the Northern high speed line. The ability to reach the regional business center within 20 to 30 min while leaving in a cheaper medium city, is creating new housing opportunities. In Northern France, this service is very much used by commuters.
Here in Rotterdam, the Netherlands our metro trains build by Bombardier have a top speed of 100 km/h, but the maximum required speed is 80 km/h, but their is 1 line where the maximum required speed is 100 km/h. That is the Randstadrail from Rotterdam to The Hague. But here in The Netherlands, the metro don't skip stations.
If you look at the London underground and specifically the deep level tube lines the restraint on speed is because the air in front of the train has really know where to go as the train is almost the size of the tunnel. In 2019 Sydney opened its first Metro line with driver less trains and a top speed of 100kph in tunnels. The line runs from Tallawong to Chatswood, but has been extended via the city of Sydney to Sydnenham and onto Bankstown. As of today 4th August 2024 the Chatswood to Sydnenham section was going to open but has been delayed by a few weeks due to some unfinished testing. The line is really good and when the section doe open its going to be a real game changer for Sydney.
High Speed Metro lines in China usually aim to decongest busy metro lines. A great example would be Beijing's Line 19, which decongests the busy Line 4. In Sydney, the new metro line, Sydney Metro West, also decongests a busy rail line, yet is being built with the same standards as the current metro line - unable to take advantage of higher speeds that would be needed to truly allow for quick connectivity between Parramatta and Sydney.
The point about being able to select a route in city centres that is well aligned for higher speeds is a good one. In London, the original "Sub-surface" lines (Metropolitan, District, Circle, Hammersmith & City) mostly followed streets in the centre as they were built by the cut and cover method, and it was easier to dig up streets for long periods than to knock down existing buildings. The earlier deep-level "Tube" lines also followed streets quite often (because of legal issues and fears about subsidence damaging buildings) and this has resulted in annoyingly sharp curves in places. Newer lines (Victoria, Jubilee, Elizabeth) don't have this problem in the city centre, but in some cases the alignment has been severely constrained by having to avoid the tangle of tunnels (not just rail ones) that are already there.
•R32s• the old retro trains on the A & C routes were very high-speed but had that eye opened demolished vibe when you're on the A to Ozone or the C Train to the last stop in East New York as a kid almost 20 yrs ago.
Even though they are express subways by speed, these speeds are often present on the ends of the lines. The passage in the hypercenter is at a lower speed because the stations are closer together for connections. For speeds, Japan does not exceed 130kph in the JR suburban network (and again, far from the hyper-center and not on all lines) and 120kph on private networks. For France, the RER goes at most to 140 kph (direct sections) and 160 kph for the majority of Transilien lines (suburban service). In the hypercentre, 100 kph are regular on the RER and 120 kph has appeared on the RER E. Many medium-sized cities have installed or are installing a suburban network composed of TER lines (similar to the S Bahn) in a star around them (called REM ^^) and some of these lines can go to 200 kph (the Strasbourg-Mulhouse-Basel connection running every 1/2 hour). And there are special cases like the cross-border CEVA (the only international RER in the world currently), which goes to 160 kph (120 kph in the tunnel), and the future CDG Exp connection which will go to 140 kph. As you say RM, Europeans have to make do with the existing network, but even in Asia, tunnel speeds are generally lower because it is in the city center, and the connections are closer together. Only the GTX in Seoul is a special case. It has few stations and is designed for 180kph.
If you were designing some of the underground systems today, would you consider having an express route and a stopping route within the city centre (you could potentially run two tunnels one on top of the other) and have an express service that only stops at key stops (stops where high capacity is expected) and have another line stopping at all stops. (I'm assuming the route is entirely underground, but if you were to have surface lines outside the city you would need to have 4 lines, express in the middle)
seams like the cities that are building faster metro lines, to improve their cities, build them in layers, with the slower lines that often stop more being closer to ground level, and the deeper they go, not only are they faster, but they also skip more stops
One way to "move metro stations further apart", but still serve as many communities in a city, is to identify stations that are close to each other and merge their platforms together. Or in the case of a London Underground station like Covent Garden, which is visible from Leicester Square and only served by lifts, put in a set of escalators from Covernt Garden directly to the platforms at Leicester Square and turn Covernt Garden into a second entrance for Leicester Square. Leicester Square is also close to Picadilly Circus Station and the three stations could be fairly easily combined into a single "super station" with some new passenger tunnels and travellators. A lot of London Underground stations could be "merged" with nearby stations, without closing any entrances.
When drawing a Pearl River metro map on Google Earth for an upcoming trip, I stumbled upon the amazing Line 18, which starts fin the north of Guangzhou will soon go all the way to Zhongshan in the south. That will make it 150 kilometres long and it will even be extended to Zhuhai later. It has a top speed of 160 km/h, which is quite impressive fro a metro. China plans to make the whole Pearl River region, which already has more skyscrapers than North America, a huge megacity. By far the largest city in the world. Line 18 will be the first line that crosses that whole city. The trains look aerodynamic like a high speed train, which is quite unusual for a metro. Projects like those show how far China is ahead of the rest of the world.
A reason that China doesnt have much suburban railway services is that most part of these railways belong to China Railway, which focus on long-distance services rather than suburban and intercity services. Because the CR is not subject to local goverments, it doesnt have to cooperate with the develop plan of the city. The services frequency is low and the price is high. However, there are some successful and very interesting lines. The Jingshan Railway in Shanghai provides frequent and cheap metro-like services that runs at 160 km/h using High-speed trains. And Xihu Line in Xi'an is another interesting project. It uses old single-track railway and uses existing diesel locomotive on both side of the train to drive old passenger carriage (converted to metro style interior), which makes it looks like DMU. So the cost of this line is very low.
The RRTS system is not a high speed metro but a regional transit system even though it does have an integrated metro system that can reach the top speeds of around 120 km/h. But even tho RRTS in itself is serves its purpose well by connecting three major cities the metro is very impractical and is a public stunt as the stations are distributed sparsely and go to the middle of nowhere while avoiding the densely populated major city centers of my city. I can already feel it being a logistical nightmare as my city already has a low population density to keep the metro financially stable apart from it just going nowhere.
What I think is amazing about high speed metro is that it could truly offer the optimised way to get from point a to point b in a city speedwise. For example, at the moment in Berlin, I can often transit faster with my bike than I would be able to with a car or the underground, the former due to traffic and the latter due to the lower average speed, due to low top speed and many stops.
Metros are more suited for inter neighborhood trips, trams and buses are more suited for intra neighborhood trips. But bikes should always outrun any neighborhood transit vehicles. People might still choose transit for comfort and convenience.
I’m glad high-speed metros are becoming relevant. They have so much potential. I’m even thinking about in the back of my mind building such a line in Minecraft
Great video! Would you call airport lines as high-speed metro lines? The metro to the Istanbul Airport has a top speed of 160+ km/h and it's underground and it's part of the metro system. It also has a few stops (albeit not as many as a typical metro line).
Caltrain might count as High Speed Metro with the new electrification finished and service about to start. They still have express trains as well obviously.
It's interesting how you perfectly hit the spot by saying going to high speed metro is like skipping landlines for cellphones. In India, we have got the high speed metro - RRTS before we got the high speed regional express (Vande Metro) which is similar to the rhein-ruhr regional express in germany. Of course, it goes without saying that vande metro is a lot cheaper as it will use existing infrastructure and therefore can be quickly deployed to high demand city pairs across the country.
High-speed metros would be ideal for express routes in Toronto and the surrounding region. Currently it takes over 2hrs to get across Toronto via transit
With the traffic getting as bad as it is in Toronto, the GO train sometimes feels like high speed transit in comparison, even when it isn't. Pray for us.
Good video. I will say though with metro speeds, too often the focus is on top-end speed. As part of what you mentioned, acceleration/braking time, walksheds, bikesheds, station spacing, curves, hills, slow-zones, grade crossings, station design/depth/size, etc...can waste more time for passengers, then a train that can't high that really high speed. Trick with trains is making sure they don't go slow, before they go fast.
HSR is fun as a tourist . But have you ever lived with it ? They never stop at my town and the average speed of the journys including the " last mile " is slow .
I agree I think this will become a bigger and bigger deal. We now have faster acceleration, open gangways, more compact doors and more clever suspension/etc. So I thnk it will become common to see a single train capable of doing 200km/h, slowing down extremely fast to handle a very tight radius, boarding an entire platform extremely fast with 4 doors a car, then closing doors and accelerating out like a rocket while people find seating via the open gangways. I think that finding a way to make bi level or consists with mixed bi level more practical would also help a lot! For example if the top level is 2 by 2 seating and the bottom is benches with open gangways on both levels. A fairly small number of staircases (maybe one per car). Otherwise I think capacity on these lines will become an issue when you have people downtown going one or two blocks as well as people going over to the next city.
Very interesting. I’ve never consciously thought about it, but express (and, in the near future, high speed metros) ostensibly fill the same niche as regional/suburban rail does in cities where they exist. It seems like the factors that determine whether express/high-speed metro vs regional/suburban rail is chosen depends on: - when the network was built (more recent, more likely to be metro) - the overall built urban form such as density and land use patterns (more density leads to metros; connecting to different nearby peri-urban cities leads to suburban rail generally) - what existed in the city prior to the new line being built (if a city already has a suburban/regional rail system, more likely to expand it than build a new isolated line) Really good video. Made me think. 🤔
I hope Bengaluru (major city in India) also gets such system to connect satellite towns around the city instead of building metros (express metros)at such large distances by skipping alot of stations ....and even Suburban rails
You dont really have a need for it in the UK with the dense existing rail networks which are usually broken up into Inner Suburban services with a top speed of around 75mph and a mix of longitudinal and high density seating usually doing end to end route lengths of under an hour (traditionally also no toilets), usually short formations doing high frequency 3-6tph timetables. And Outer Suburban services which usually have a top speed of 90mph or 100mph doing route lengths of up to 2 hours, usually has toilets and no longitudinal seating sections, longer less frequent formations of maybe 2-3tph. You then usually have interleaved limited stop or express services where they omit station calls for higher average speeds before then getting to Regional Rail services with end to end routes that can be around 3 hours and speeds of 100-115mph and finally Intercity services with speeds of 125mph+ doing end to end routes of 6 around hours, occasionally longer.
Barcelona has a quite slow metro system, and I think Madrid’s line 8 is the only metro line that operates above 100 km/h in Spain. A high speed metro would be fantastic between Sabadell/Terrassa and Barcelona!
Complicated feelings coming from Melbourne. The Metro sets hitting 115km/h but only on certain line sections, and V/Line arguably filling both a pseudo-suburban role but also a regional role with its 160km/h sets. I remember being really surprised to learn many country's suburban railways didn't have 115km/h as their regular top speed.
So what are the stop spacings in these high speed systems? Would you still need parallel system of normal metro to serve the core alongside the high speed system for larger distances?
Check out Urban Caffeine's store for more cool shirts like the one I'm wearing in this video: shop.urbancaffeine.com/collections/urbanism-transit-tshirts
question - do you think this sort of technology would encourage sprawl?
I may not fully understand the purpose of the spaced out lines
Hello guys, neeraj here! (The guy who shot rrts)
I am open to questions which are not extremely deep in the transportation-field.
Also, I suggest people living in delhi-ncr to give RRTS a visit. I am pretty sure you would be surprised how great everything is.
thanks for the shot :)
Yes iam from delhi and i want to visit it, iam just waiting for it to be completed fully to meerut
Spending time and money to get thier nd only having a short aint worth it
@@kennedyspace1159 agreed, it would be very exciting once completed also would be probably a bit closer to your location. Currently, you either need to take some shitty bus or auto from vaishali, no direct metro connectivity from first station of rrts.
@@hooman3576 yea once completed ill go to sarai kale khan and have a quick trip to meerut would be amazing 🔥🔥
I live in Delhi but i am originally from Uttarakhand and i am waiting for it to be completed till Meerut so i can go to my hometown faster. Hopefully it will happen soon. Can't wait.
High Speed Metros can act like suburban rail and urban express rail at the same time, where the metro can go very very fast but connect various destinations. GO Transit and the TTC need to build more high-speed metros and regional rail instead of peak-hour commuter rail and slow legacy metros. This is because Toronto's geography and urban sprawl call for a fast system with a flexible route.
True that. Think of the possibility of riding say from Barrie to downtown Toronto in not much more time that it takes to go from Kennedy to Kipling on the current TTC subway. And, a GO Transit high-speed metro, working in conjunction with high-speed rail in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor could really link up so much of southern Ontario.
Dont forget commuter rails
So Paris RER
Surprised Reece didn’t mention GO electrification in this episode.
@@bigbandgapenergy As mentioned in the video, I see this tech as distinct from something like the RER
Note regarding the RRTS in Delhi - It also becomes a conventional metro corridor when it enters the state of Uttar Pradesh, where it will become parellel to the Meerut Metro, i.e. both the RRTS and the Meerut Metro will run on the same tracks. While the RRTS will only use 4-5 stations after entering Uttar Pradesh, the Meerut metro will consist of other stations not included as RRTS stations. The rolling stock for the Meerut Metro is like a conventional metro rolling stock with operational speeds of 80 km per hour, manufactured by Alstom in India. Basically it means that while acting as a high speed metro overall, it becomes an express metro after entering Uttar Pradesh.
Yes, I talk about this in my RRTS video - will be curious if they build passing tracks for the fast RRTS trains!
@@RMTransit Its almost complete, I think they have passing tracks at stations for faster trains
@@RMTransit YEs they have built it near the stations, rrts will use the main line while the metro will use loop line,
and i think the rrts service frequency is 15mins for now, the scheduling will be done as such to provide no interfence to RRTS
@@zhappy yes, a strecth is funtional, other parts need time to finish the stations and last stages of finishing work like signalling, OHE etc
i think the whole line will be opened in early parts of 2025
meerut metro 135km/h and rrts 160 km/h capable of 180 km/h future capability over 200 km/h both systems using same track
In a sense, the Shinkansen is like a high-speed metro because of how frequent the service is.
It's even more frequent than some metro systems too
running at almost every 3 minutes during peak hours
I recently visited Japan and I thought the exact same thing. I especially loved the option to book unreserved seats, so then you can just board any train.
Plus the fact you can buy non-reserved seat
@@XQuantenthis is so good and I love it. And with all good things, there are plans to remove it for some routes
And it does indeed get used for supercommuting
It's surreal to ride the outer sections of the DC metro. Especially the Orange and Silver lines. I took the Silver out to Dulles and it was so nice to see the metro going faster than the cars on the highway
It really flies along!
I could see a day where the green line is extended to transfer with the light rail at bwi effectively making a Baltimore Washington combined system.
@@car_tar3882 I could see WMATA doing that, tho not in my lifetime. I expect to see one more major expansion. Most likely the Bloop.
Personally, I think WMATA should focus on the inside beltway and the first level suburbs. I want to see MARC and VRE expand into regional rail. Hopefully, with the Long Bridge project going forward, we can see MARC to Alexandria. VRE to Richmond and out towards Front Royal also seems to be on the table, looking at VPRA's acquiring of Rights of Way. Now we need to get MDOT and MARC to get Camden Line weekend service. I went to see an O's game, and MARC would have been so much easier than dealing with the Baltimore Light rail and Amtrak
RRTS has changed Meerut-Ghaziabad commute.
Once its complete, it will become very popular
yup
I shot the footage of rrts! Such a pleasure to travel in it man. Loved every second of it.
I am sure it will!
I think Guangzhou Metro Line 18 and Line 22 are the best examples of high-speed metro. They are planned and constructed as both a suburban rail and a metro. They use suburban trains with metro interiors. Stations spaced slightly close together in Guangzhou and far apart outside of it. They are planned to reach other cities (as far as Zhuhai and Shenzhen). They run almost fully automatically (GoA3). And they run with Local and Express service (no express on line 22 at the moment as it's too short but have provision for that)
The Guangzhou Line 18 and 22 are magnificent and top-notch service. However, walking distance in between is too far, more than 500m walking distance, even there are people mover escalater which caused the transit experience lowered.
@@hanhoco1 If you mean the transfer btw them and other lines, I agree. I tried those transfers before when I visited Guangzhou and they are quite terrible
Most riders aren’t walking up, they are riding another line
@@RMTransit I fell like transferring in L18/22 two other lines in Guangzhou Metro is actually pretty difficult though
Delhi-Meerut Rapid Rail is similar, when the line enters Meerut, it has stations for both metro and Rapid rail. The metro uses the same line but rapid rail only has a few stops in Meerut city while Meerut metro has frequent stops
don‘t forget highspeed Regional Trains. Here in Germany we have a few of them like the IRE200 from Wendlingen to Ulm with a top speed of 200km/h on the highspeedline where ICE are only 50km/h faster. Other Routes are from Munich to Nürnberg or Nürnberg to Erfurt, all the use parts of ICE highspeed lines :)
Underrated comment! How often is Germany's ICE system criticized for not having ICEs completely separated from other rail traffic? That there's also this other side, that you could also have regional traffic sped up so that it flows nicely together with high speed rail trains is often overlooked.
Sure, more tracks would be even better, however I'm pretty sure, many towns along those HSR lines with regional stations don't want to miss their high speed regional connections anymore, even if that means that those trains sometimes have to wait at those regional stations to be overtaken by the ICE. Those stations and those regional trains would not exist without the HSR line.
@@patrickhanft Agreed. Germanys regional train system is extremely underrated for what it is.
This is actually already kinda common in Sweden with train systems like Öresundståg, Västtåg, Norrtåg and Mälartåg running on lines meant for high speed rail to speed up travel time. their top speed of 200km/ (180km/h currently for Öresundståg but the new gen trains will be able to atleast run in 200km/h) makes the trains fast enough to not block high speed services. Even the new high speed lines Stockholm-Linköping and Gothenburg-Borås are planned to have these high speed regional trains share tracks with high speed trains. A good example of an already existing line using this approach is Västkustbanan between Malmö-Gothenburg, where Öresundståg and high speed trains shares tracks. I personally think the term "interregional express train" fits better as that basically explains more what type of train it is than "high speed regional train".
You could also argue that the Kodama services on the Japanese Shinkansen system is a type of high speed regional train due to the short stop spacing they have.
If only DB could maintain a schedule
at least there is a schedule and turns out, a good bunch of these trains are even running … 😆
RRTS trains are designed for 180kmph but capped at 160kmph, the exclusive coach has vending machines inside them which is quite continent considering that Delhi to Meerut or vice a versa takes an hour and Meerut metro will run on the same tracks of RRTS when Meerut section is completed.
Thanks for using delhi 🇮🇳 rrts for thumbnail ❤❤❤ i hope to see more rrts in 🇮🇳
São Paulo made it in early 2000's. CPTM L11 line is a former suburban railway converted to semi "high-speed" metro where trains can reach top speed up to 100 km/h
100 km/h is fine but not high speed
@@etbadaboum I feel like I would concur
@@RMTransit CPTM L11 sounds more like Philly's PATCO line, which, being from Philly myself--the PATCO line is a kitbash of three existing rail lines: (1) the Locust Street Subway, one of a few parts lying around from Philly's largely unrealized subway dreams; (2) the Broadway subway, which connected to the former and crossed the Ben Franklin Bridge, terminating at a stop at Camden (NJ) Broadway, now known as Walter Rand Transportation Center. Historically these two lines worked to bring suburban Jersey commuters into the city.
In the 1960s, PATCO planners added element number three to the mix: (3) the former Philadelphia-Reading Seashore Lines main line from Camden to Lindenwold. PATCO is thus a former mainline railway line converted to a subway line, which uses rolling stock in subway loading gauge but signaling and power systems capable of handling extended journeys at interurban speeds.
In a way this is a good demonstration of how S-Bahn technologies and Reece's high speed metros differ. The goal of S-Bahn systems, whether they're called that, S-Togs, RERs, Cercanias, (much of) the Tokyo Metro, or Thameslink or the Elizabeth Line, are to link existing suburban rail networks together. The advantage high speed metros offer occurs in cities--today mainly in South and East Asia, but tomorrow likely in Africa, Latin America, and the Sunbelt--where the entire regional railway network more-or-less needs to be built from scratch, and can therefore be built to a single unified technical standard instead of rolling stock having to mix-and-match different technical standards together.
That said, if your metro region has a lot of extant rail alignments it still makes more sense to link them together in an S-Bahn or RER-type network--like what Toronto's doing--than it does to build new alignments from scratch.
Seoul - GTX
Delhi - RRTS
Guangzhou - M18,M22
Istanbul - Hizray ,M20
Honestly the rrts system is probably the biggest boon for Delhi to NCR commuters
It should be made in every major city in India connecting to it's satellite cities
@@arenacoder i've heard theres plans to build one in mumbai too
@@RealNotOrrio theu also had "plans" to build a metro systm inmumbai
I wish I had better devices to shoot it, my 200$ phone didn't capture it the way I thought in my brain. Please give it a visit if you live in delhi-ncr, its worth it. (Yes, I am neeraj)
Hyderabad also talking about it, to built it.@@RealNotOrrio
At this point us Aussies and Canadians are probably better off doing our long distance train journeys with Kangaroos and Moose respectively!
We'll probably see teleportation implemented before we see HSR in either country.
Don’t worry, us New Yorkers will probably never see the advancements that Canadians and Australians have made in their metros. That’s one thing you guys have us beat in by a mile.
Lmao😂
I sure hope not!
@@RMTransit You and me both Reece! While I obviously can't speak on Canada's behalf, I think we both know the track record (pun intended 😜) and likelihood of true HSR ever being built on the Aussie east coast. In my opinion, building a network in Canada makes much more sense purely because of the size of the population and the distances covered. A HSR network servicing the Canadian heartland could actually become profitable in time if done right.
Tilt Train is somewhat high-speed.
Excellent video idea. I was just mulling over this yesterday when stumbling over an old document calling Sydney Metro "Sydney Rapid Transit".
Probably important to nominate the 3 things that create speed:
1. Top speed
2. Average acceleration
3. Dwell times
It's the 3rd one that makes Sydney Metro's new timetable quicker than the old Sydney Trains timetable on the SAME line, EVEN for the express service that skips stops - which Sydney Metro never does. That's thanks to more doors and fewer seats (and no stairs).
But don't undersell the 2nd one - have you seen the travel time improvements on British Rail with the new locomotives that accelerate harder? They've been able to stop using tilt trains in some cases because the top speed wasn't as relevant in a winding-road situation; the engines pull harder and they're still making less time than the old tilt trains despite having a lower top speed (or top speed in the curves: TBC). This slow-fast-slow-fast experience is sort of analogous to stop-start-stop-start, and we used to have single-deck trains in Sydney too, before 1994. But they were FAR slower at departing, and even the trains that we received in the 2010s (A sets and B sets) you can FEEL the kick of the acceleration more than everything that was made before 2010.
Yet again supporting my theory of "everything new in transit is an S-Bahn"
i cannot tell whether this is a good or a bad thing :/
Back in the 1930s/40s, NYC realized close metro stops made the IRT lines (1/2/3/4/5/6 trains) too slow. That's why the IND lines (ex. A, C, E lines) were spaced farther apart, and it's why, if the Second Avenue Line is full built down the east side of Manhattan, it will act as an high-speed metro version of the Lexington Avenue Line.
IRT had lots of stops because of the population density along those IRT corridors. It was a necessity to build close stops so as to not overcrowd the platforms at those stations.
The IND stations are farther apart, but some services are very redundant. The Grand Concourse line runs parallel to the 4 in the Bronx, and offers nearly the same amount of stops.
@@Jorge-lh6px This is because Mayor John Hylan, who proposed the IND system, wanted it to compete with the IRT and BMT, eventually replacing those lines. The Grand Concourse line was supposed to replace the Jerome Avenue line. And I wouldn't say it's "redundant", since it takes some pressure off the 4, which is still very much crowded during rush hours.
@@nasifsiddiquey8867 Increasing frequency along the four would be the best way relieve the overcrowding issue. Headways can vary during rush hour, with often ten minute headways for arguably the most densely populated area of the Bronx. It doesn’t help that the B/D also has such bad headways.
It will be faster, though what is the top speed? I am pretty sure sub 100 kph?
@@RMTransit Not sure about exact speed, I just know that the planning around newer subway stations in the U.S. is about speed (ex. LA has a good bit of distance between its D Line stops being built)
Yeah Rrts is fastest metro system in India currently with 160 as top speed. India is expanding it's metros in quite good speed. We are also confident on our Bullet train system which is currently under construction 🚧🚧🚧
Top speed 180kmh, Operating Speed 160kmh, Speed Test By 200kmh
not just metro, its the 2nd fastest train in whole of india!
This is what the Grand Paris Express aims to be right? Huge distances between stops, fully automated, and higher speeds than the intramuros Paris Metro.
Also, what about some lines of the Madrid Metro which have some pretty long distances between stations?
Tokyo's Tsukuba Express opened in 2005 with a top speed of 130 km/hr, and a rate of accelleration you can feel as a passenger,. Its stations are either elevated or underground, and all have platform screen doors. This was a decade earlier than any of the Shenzen Metro lines mentioned. Also worth mentioning is Perth's northern line, which opened in 1993 and has a top speed of 130 km/hr, although its accelleration doesn't feel as fast as the Tsukuba Express. Two underground stations were opened on this line in 2007.
I feel like your definition of suburban rail is just that "it already exists, and it's mostly old". What is the technical difference between a brand new suburban rail network, built from scratch, and a brand new high-speed metro system, built from scratch? Is it just the metro style seating layout? Or is it that it goes through the city centre in a tunnel? If the Elizabeth Line was built from scratch and didn't use existing lines in the East and West of the city, would you then call it High Speed Metro? It just feels like you're inventing a category for the sake of it. What am I missing?
Suburban rail is mainline rail, not such technical definition needs to be followed for a metro. You can build a new totally independent line and it makes sense.
The Elizabeth line wouldn’t have not used the existing lines east and west of the city, but if it did and everything was like the leg to Abbey Wood I’d call it high speed metro sure, but the design and planning wouldn’t be as they are for the line of today.
In most countries fast trains always need to follow mainline rail regulations because light rail is limited to a certain top speed.
North america is really the odd one out there with excessive heavy rail regulations making it necessary to have a third category for subways that are not heavy (mainline) rail by law.
RRTS in india is metro but larger and faster with less frequent stops. The difference between mainline and rrts is night and day honestly.
@@lars7935 the sense I get is that the high speed metros do not generally do so
"The flexibility of metros with the speed of suburban rail" feels like overselling it a bit. Legacy suburban rail lines had the same flexibility when they were first being built, and in many places they're built either on viaducts or on cheaper embankments just like these high-speed metros are. If you ignore the history and only focus on current operations, then the Copenhagen S-trains have a bunch of similarities with these high-speed metros, albeit at a smaller scale due to the city being smaller, and I'd argue the same goes for the RER. They're not so different, the difference is mainly whether the line was built first and had city grow around it, or if the city grew first and had the rail line built afterwards.
Also, the high-speed metros do make a tradeoff - higher top speeds mean longer stop spacings, which also means less coverage and longer last-mile trips. This is often only a worthwhile tradeoff for large cities where there's already a more traditional metro with tighter stop spacing.
High-speed metros are really just logical way to build a brand-new commuter rail line today in places without legacy infrastructure.
Yeah everything he described here sounded like S-Bahn in the bigger cities in Germany
I would like to see analysis of how many metro lines are maxing out their acceleration/deceleration in terms of passenger comfort, and could benefit from increased top speeds.
It's also the same reason why light rail is so popular in the US because building a full sized mainline through already built up regions is already a PITA and the only options are to either run the trains on the streets (taking a toll on speed, doesn't work in every country, curves are guaranteed to be sharp) or build the tracks above or below the roads (which is expensive, doesn't solve the curve problem if elevated).
@@betaich Its not, S-Bahns can have level crossings, they also have heavy interlining so the core section has much more frequency than most outer branches.
Being able to just drop a line almost anywhere is a really big deal that I wouldn't undersell. I get where you're coming from, but being able to add lines post hoc has a ton of value, because development does not always happen where its planned or in the way its planned.
The GTX actually looks more like a metro than the Chinese high speed metros because it has more standing room. I do wonder what the safety regs will be like, since one of the lines apparently interlines with the tail-end of the SRT high speed line into Seoul.
That being said, I was surprised to learning that people are able to stand on some higher speed rail like the Arlanda express. I knew that some 160 km/h trains in China allowed standing because of how high the capacity numbers are, but did not expect it for 200 km/h trains.
On Germany ICE high speed trains Standing passengers are normal nand allowed
@@betaich It all depend on acceleration, not top speed
AFAIK 320 kph+ Chinese HSR trains allow for standing
There are standing tickets for the KTX which runs at 300km/h, so having it on the GTX is pretty chill.
In Asia, most metros are large (coach width), about 2.9 m at minimum, the same as a regional train. If they don't build a regional network based on interconnecting existing suburban train branches, they can build new lines, with train length based on suburban trains, but with metro technology if not automated metro tech, combining both concepts with the objectives of average speed and pax/hr/direction. That works really well for a large city sprawling far away from the center. The line can be divided into three parts: two suburban and one central. Central stations can be built either with double island platforms of with bypass tracks to allow some express capability while stopping at important stations and suburban stations will be more spaced.
There can be at least two kind of services: Central, stopping at the edge of the dense city, Express, with all stops served in the suburbs and a few stops in the center, but if the infrastructure allows it, you can add two more types of services: the super express, going from a large far away suburb to the other with express stops in the center; skipping most of the other stops, suburbs included or semi center service, omnibus in the center but not stopping in the intermediate suburbs. Possibilities are limitless, however the more types of services, the more difficult to comprehend it will be. That's why China seems to love the central lines with seperate extentions that later become express services when the center part is ready, making both a metro and a RER type line, much like in Japan.
A metro must serve the metropolis, it cannot just go from Point A to Point B at top speed without stopping anywhere else.
That being said, running trains faster for only a few trains per line must come at a cost, power consumption. It may not be viable for every city.
Even with its 120 kph speed, the Grand Paris Express will outpace most of the RER in terms of average speed. (except for the very far parts of lines C, D and E that can reach over 130-140 kph). Most of the central RER networks runs at 90-110 kph.
In that regard, GPX is a high speed metro, to the scale of Paris, it doesn't need to reach 180 kph.
Basically an S-Bahn. The S-Bahn in Hamburg and Berlin go to 100 kmh while the other proper S-Bahns even reach up to 140Kmh.
It’s not, for the reasons I discussed the RER not being one in the video
@@RMTransit than the distinction isn't really clear to me and yur video made t much less clear
S-Bahns use regular mainline for the most part and only has a strategic central tunnel; these metro lines do not operate on legacy mainlines. Similar to the difference between RER & Metro, except the metro lines are higher speed in this case.
An S-Bahn, but with metro-style complete right of way and higher speeds
@@hatedarkchain 100% exclusive r.o.w, okay thats true S-Bahns are allowed to have level crossings with barriers. But they are not slower class 423 used in Munich, Frankfurt and Köln can reach up to 140Kmh and they actually do it.
I'm so excited for the korean GTX, such a massive project.
You'll then be happy to learn other Korean cities will get ones too!
Thank you for using our RRTS in thumbnail. I'm glad we are in that league now.
hell yeah buddy! and its going to get better in the upcoming years
It's worth noting that 120-130 km/hr metro systems were still first seen in the US, with the DC metro topping out at 75 mph and BART topping out at 80 mph.
Finally. I looked so much for info about this.
Your definition maps perfectly onto S-Bahn type systems as well. Those high speed metro's don't have trains that are any more compact or flexible than most S-Bahn trains.
There is no difference in your definition other than age and not using existing infrastructure.
Why define a new category when an existing one covers it already?
That’s not true, S-Bahn trains can operate on mainlines, the same is not true for metro trains. They also *do* operate on the national rail network. S Bahn systems also typically feature heavy track sharing, which also isn’t typical of metros.
So no, this existing category does not cover!
@@RMTransit Many S-Bahn systems have very limited track sharing and quite a few Metro systems interline with Mainline.
There are also S-Bahn systems that cannot share track at all due to not being compatible with Mainline systems.
You may be defining a distinct category. I'd argue however that it isn't really a very useful one.
If you are late to work or school it is a great idea, to arrive on time. Using a high speed metro allows you to arrive on time instead of being late.
This is one of your best videos. Period.
Thank you!
I like fast trains
I hate fast cars.
Hong Kong represent!!! We did it back in 1998 with the Tung Chung Line 6:06 that goes up to 130km/h and a frequency terrible by Hong Kong standards of…6 minutes. We needed it because our new airport was located insanely far away and we just built “sprawl” there as well, which we can’t half-arse with bus connections (car dependency was out of the question)
Its a very cool line, but very different from the rest of the system
That's similar to Delhi Airport express metro line with does similar speeds
I believe the vande metro will be used in a similar manner
BART in the Bay Area goes as fast as 125km/hour through the Bay tunnel!
Tokyo and Kansai regions have tons of operators that do 90, 110, 130 km/hr for long stretches and no one calls them rapid metro for the simple reason that there isnt the need to. Compare that to Seoul or say Beijing where there are many metro lines but traversing from one side of city to the other is still a pain because of the low speed and the 6-8 car trains can't handle the demand. So you can see why they would look to a high speed alternative. Singapore's Cross Island line looks to address the same issue through longer spaced stations although the line itself does not go anywhere important.
I thought Seoul is more like Tokyo than Beijing, because Seoul has through-running and express services, no?
@@alexhaowenwong6122i would think so, but Japan’s express service is kind of unmatched
@@alexhaowenwong6122 No express service exists in most of the metro lines in Seoul, even though they span multiple cities. Line 7 for example is 60km long but stops at all stations. Although it is technically possible to add express service, an entirely new high-speed line is cheaper hence the GTX plans were born. Although the GTX is in fact fast and a nice addition to Seoul's transit network, a lot of it would be unnecessary if the metro lines were built to accommodate express services, a waste of resources if you consider the whole picture...
There a polish company called nevomo who are planning on integrating maglev tracks onto regular railway, on there test run they demonstrate there maglev accelerating to 100km/h in 11 seconds, there main goal is to integrate maglev on inter city rail and increase the speed maximum by 72%, aka 300km/h on regular rail and 550km/h on high speed rail, they haven’t said anything about metros though
Would Paris’ RER network fall into the definition of “high speed metro”?
In the City Center, yes!
But high speed metros usually have wider stop spacing outside of the center.
I’d say no, instead it’s a type of S-Train, perhaps the best example in Paris for a high speed metro (if you push the definition quite a bit) might be the new metro lines 15-18 (the Grand Paris Express’ new build lines)
I talk about this in the video
Debatable. Trains are theoretically able to reach 140km/h (90mph) on some sections of the RER network (although not on all 5 lines), and "only" 100km/h (62mph) through the city centre. That's arguably fast enough to be considered.
However, unlike the kind of lines/systems Reece seems to be suggesting, the RER is mostly *not* new-build. Line A was formed when RATP took over operation of two disconnected suburban rail lines, East and West of the city centre. The city centre tunnel (and its impressive stations) was the only real bit of new infrastructure.
It's similar for lines C, D and E (which of course is still being built). However, I believe Line B was almost entirely new-build, so maybe that would count?
There is certainly more of a case for the RER being classed as high-speed metro than (say) London's Elizabeth Line, as EL has to share track with other passenger trains to the West of London, whereas I think (at least under normal circumstances) even RER D does not share track with other suburban trains.
But while I do sometimes use the phrase "Regional Express Metro" to describe the RER to people, I don't think it really qualifies as high-speed metro of the type Reece is describing.
I'd say it's a suburban railway (like Transillian) that crosses the city
One thing you didn't explore is the tradeoff between wider station spacing and access. Manhattan has a stop within blocks of any location. BART has effectively one stop for the core of Berkeley. The next stop north is in a residential area, and south is nearly in Oakland. So, unless you live close to those stops, you spend 15 - 25 minutes walking or taking a bus to get to BART, and the time saved by higher speed between stations is dwarfed by the longer commute time and inconvenience.
Not quite. You still have conventional metros for last mile connectivity after you get down from your higher speed metro.
Thanks so much for the encouraging bit emphasizing the new increase in modularity to build out rail which means we will finally get a lot more rail phew. Great news….
I mean I would never know that info if I did not watch your vids. Because the news does little to let us know. Great journalism on your part. Kudos and many thanks to you and to your Patreons.
Hong Kong is an amazing mix of dense metro networks and high-speed. The HK Airport Express is perhaps one of the best in the world. I used to travel to Shenzhen for work each week and took the East Rail line up to Lo Wu, and those trains easily reached 140kmh. Having said that, Munich's S-Bahn lines are very similar in that sense. They operate mostly underground in the city centre and then at high-speed on the way in and out of town. Great video as always, thank you!
Interesting, Delhi's Airport Express line is almost exactly like Hong Kong's
Actually Delhi's Airport metro uses the same trainsets, same configuration and speed
The berlin S-Bahn has a top-speed of 100kmh which is decently fast given its age of 100 years in 2024. Between Charlottenburg and Potsdamm the S7 runs through the city forest, avoiding residential areas and connecting the two places in what is eventually an express line (taking the S1 through the suburbs takes considerably longer). There is also the option of taking the RE trains between the two cities, cutting off a couple more minutes because of the skipped stops. I love multi-layered service availability like that and I think its the best way to spread demand equally and serve all 'levels efficiently. Separating these service levels into different services and networks de-clusters the whole service availability and increases reliability of the system (take NYC for a bad example of this) and I think more cities should think about multi-layered service networks. Thanks for reading!
The East Rail line in Hong Kong used to be regional, then electrified and grade separated into commuter rail in the 80s, increasing the speed, then trains retrofitted into suburban metro in the 2000s. I can see similar transformations for US commuter rails like Chicago Metra, if they are properly funded.
Most "high-speed metros" are newly built suburban trains at classical mainline speed (100mph/160kph). Commuter trains already do that all over the world (even in some American cities), the only difference being that they're not newly built. Which can hardly be a distinguishing factor for long, since all suburban rail was at one point newly built. Take the London and Greenwich Railway: When it was first built, it was followed no existing standards, it connected to no mainline network, and it was fully grade separated.
It's a marketing thing. China could have called their new suburban lines "commuter rail" or "suburban rail" but that doesn't sound futuristic enough. I think it's pretty awesome that countries that have traditionally neglected commuter rail like China are warming up to the concept and if a glitzy new marketing term helps with that, then so be it.
This misses the point for a few reasons, mainline railways are *not* actually built all that frequently, and even when they are, they are not comparable to metro ROW in most cases. Suburban rail or “commuter rail” is distinct because again, it is tied to the standards required for operational on a national rail network - so you can’t have automation etc
I don't know about other lines but rrts is definitely more similar to metro than ANY Indian Railway's train.
@@RMTransit
Preexisting standards exist simply because there is infrastructure that you want to connect to. When any city's first commuter railway was built, this was not a concern, it became a concern simply through expansion of the system and the passing of time, which will happen to any system.
Imagine this: It's 2050 and there's a new worldwide standard for metro electrification different from what is used now. Shanghai wants to built an extension or branch to a high-speed metro line, by now several decades old.
Do they 1) bite the bullet and use the older, obsolete standard for the sake of interoperability, thereby constraining themselves to the existing standards?
Or do they 2) use the new standard and figure out a way for switching electrication during operation, like in Paris or Tokyo?
In either case, any extension or branch is now unable to fulfill your definition of high-speed metro.
Being new can't be a distinguishing factor if the passing of time continues to be a thing. If the only distinguishing factor that remains is the use of separate, dedicated trackage and distinct standards, what does that mean for the commuter railways that already operate on dedicated trackage with distinct track/loading gauges, electrification etc, like Copenhagen?
Reece, you mention that modern high speed metros are emerging in Asia, but you didn’t mention any in Japan. Does Japan have any in the works? If not, is this due to “too much legacy rail” like in Europe…?
I would say so - they have such a strong network of legacy rail lines already! Though there are a few like the Tsukuba Express that do exist.
The Japanese approach is a bit different where many metro trains interline with mainline services. The top speed usually isn't too impressive but express service patterns make up for that.
That and metro lines tend to have longer stop spacing in general compared to most european systems.
5:52 Delhi-Meerut RRTS
Funfact - Delhi RRTS is itself a regional rail just grade separated modern line
Just a feedback- This video was more about whataboutery. Keep it specific and structure it in a way that educates people without randomly jumping from one point to the other.
Third rail subways are mistake IMO.
That killed the potential for subways to become inter-city or regional trains.
What about third rail regional rail like in London and New York?
Most subways don’t have capacity for stuff like this.
Most of the time a subway does not need to consider becoming this
The Kolsås line in Oslo, has trams so that is why it has both running to Bekkestua station and only third rail further towards Kolsås.
This is how I see Sydney Metro. With a top-speed of 110km p/h, wide spacing and PSDs, the thing flies. Given how massive Sydney is (same size as Tokyo and Ile-de-France), it needs this high-speed system to connect the vast distances. And the new lines cut journey times nearly in half compared to the legacy DD system.
We will soon (20yrs) have a truly world-class transport system:
- Light-rail: Traditional inner-city role
- Converrted train lines to metro: traditional metro with close spacing, above-groumd routes
- New metro lines: high-speed, tunnelled metro connecting the whole city
- DD Train lines: express services connecting the regions to the CBD and Parra via the four entry points into the Sydney basin
High-speed rail: Newcastle to Wollongong creating a 6-city global economic hub
Reece, are you coming down for the metro opening? The new line and stations look even better than GPE!
Sydney metro system architecture is based on Hong Kong MTR’s South Island line, and as the MTR has experience with high speed metros in the Tung Chung Line and Airport Express line, our future is pretty bright for trains. I’m actually graduating this year in mechatronics and I’m hoping to get into building more railways for Sydney!
My understanding was that the top speed is 100 kph
@@RMTransitThat's true for the current line and the Western Sydney Airport line. However, Metro West is planned for 110km p/h as it will be 100% new track with generous station spacings. As I mentioned above, only our fully new-track lines will fit into this high-speed metro model.
So while the top-speed still won't be THAT fast, obviously average speed is more important. It's here that the design characteristics of the new Sydney Metro lines will be genuinely high-(average) speed. The current line is 58kph and Metro West will beat that comfortably, so its average speed will be around 15kph faster than the RER A (47kph)!
The speed will be necessary for Metro West as it will be the most important rail line in the country. After a couple of extensions, it will connect the three cities of Sydney, the first and third largest airports in the country, first and third largest CBDs, our two main sporting precincts, and the majority of our cultural sites and tourism attractions, as well as our high-speed rail hub (whenever we get around to building that).
I’m from dc, and our metro’s are pretty fast considering their blocky design. There’s a part between fort totten and Takoma park I like to call the “race track” since incoming and outgoing MARC trains get passed by the metro lol. When you get outside of DC, the metro turns into a suburban commuter line considering how far apart stations are. It’s interesting to see the transition take place
If you ever want videos from RRTS/RapidX/Namo Bharat, feel free to contact me.
Its station is like 5min drive away from my home
Damn, that's pretty close! I had to travel 1.5-2hr to shoot this lol
@@hooman3576 I live in Rajnagar, Guldhar RRTS station is very close lol
@@apoorvchauhan6258 maje h bhai aapke toh
Feels great to see India's RRTS in thumbnail, looking awesome
its even better in person!
You are just amazing man. ❤ from India. Your hair is amazing too kinda like a toddler, smooth and silky. Keep it up. I watch your videos so much that I would even watch any other country's metro network through your channel for deep knowledge and your voice. Everything abt this channel is just extraordinary
Chinese regional rail ran by China Railways (CR) operate at 160km/h while HSR varies between 200 to 350kmh, with 400kmh on its way. The problem with Chinese rail is that the national CR uses CR standards different from China's national metro standards (the track gauge is the same, but loading gauges, signaling, electrification, train design, even running direction etc... are incompatible); additionally CR unlike Japan's JR is purely focused on regional services running with slow acceleration, far apart station spacings, and on dedicated CR infrastructure, refusing to mix in commuter rail services. Therefore its up to Chinese cities to locally build dedicated High Speed Metro corridors either using Metro standards or adopting some CR standard (what we call the Type-D Intercity Standard) and operating them independently from CR's regional rail systems
Metromare in Rome is one of the first examples of high speed metro. The stop spacing near the two termini in Rome and Ostia is similar to regular metro, while the central part in the suburbs has a wide stop spacing, and most of it is made at high speed.
And also the RATP part of Paris RER A and B is high speed metro: these lines are completely segregated and indipendent from other traffic, and the stop spacing allows for long stretches at high speed.
While I do appreciate that you differentiate fast metro with regional rail, I think it is also true that PSDs are very normal in China and they were actually planning to do through-running for a lot of lines, that you mentioned. if I remember that correctly, some of the earliest pioneers of Intracity Rail (市域铁路 or fast metros) started as improvement projects of Conventional rails, and only became what it is today, because CR refused to cooperate
Nowadays i see more Chinese people on yt than before. Did anything changed ?
@@Amoghavarsha. Still GFW, but more people are talking about urbanism right now You cannot avoid China wall talking about high speed metro
Imo, the spotlight should be shined on high speed regional trains.
The Hauts-de-France region brought Calais, Arras and Dunkirk closer to the regional capital, Lille, by operating TGV trains on the Northern high speed line.
The ability to reach the regional business center within 20 to 30 min while leaving in a cheaper medium city, is creating new housing opportunities. In Northern France, this service is very much used by commuters.
Here in Rotterdam, the Netherlands our metro trains build by Bombardier have a top speed of 100 km/h, but the maximum required speed is 80 km/h, but their is 1 line where the maximum required speed is 100 km/h. That is the Randstadrail from Rotterdam to The Hague. But here in The Netherlands, the metro don't skip stations.
The main ones that come to mind that weren't mentioned are İstanbul Line 11 and the Guangdong intercity system.
If you look at the London underground and specifically the deep level tube lines the restraint on speed is because the air in front of the train has really know where to go as the train is almost the size of the tunnel.
In 2019 Sydney opened its first Metro line with driver less trains and a top speed of 100kph in tunnels.
The line runs from Tallawong to Chatswood, but has been extended via the city of Sydney to Sydnenham and onto Bankstown.
As of today 4th August 2024 the Chatswood to Sydnenham section was going to open but has been delayed by a few weeks due to some unfinished testing.
The line is really good and when the section doe open its going to be a real game changer for Sydney.
High Speed Metro lines in China usually aim to decongest busy metro lines. A great example would be Beijing's Line 19, which decongests the busy Line 4. In Sydney, the new metro line, Sydney Metro West, also decongests a busy rail line, yet is being built with the same standards as the current metro line - unable to take advantage of higher speeds that would be needed to truly allow for quick connectivity between Parramatta and Sydney.
The point about being able to select a route in city centres that is well aligned for higher speeds is a good one. In London, the original "Sub-surface" lines (Metropolitan, District, Circle, Hammersmith & City) mostly followed streets in the centre as they were built by the cut and cover method, and it was easier to dig up streets for long periods than to knock down existing buildings. The earlier deep-level "Tube" lines also followed streets quite often (because of legal issues and fears about subsidence damaging buildings) and this has resulted in annoyingly sharp curves in places. Newer lines (Victoria, Jubilee, Elizabeth) don't have this problem in the city centre, but in some cases the alignment has been severely constrained by having to avoid the tangle of tunnels (not just rail ones) that are already there.
I love the way you talk about transit it's very interesting and informative
•R32s• the old retro trains on the A & C routes were very high-speed but had that eye opened demolished vibe when you're on the A to Ozone or the C Train to the last stop in East New York as a kid almost 20 yrs ago.
Even though they are express subways by speed, these speeds are often present on the ends of the lines.
The passage in the hypercenter is at a lower speed because the stations are closer together for connections.
For speeds, Japan does not exceed 130kph in the JR suburban network (and again, far from the hyper-center and not on all lines) and 120kph on private networks.
For France, the RER goes at most to 140 kph (direct sections) and 160 kph for the majority of Transilien lines (suburban service). In the hypercentre, 100 kph are regular on the RER and 120 kph has appeared on the RER E.
Many medium-sized cities have installed or are installing a suburban network composed of TER lines (similar to the S Bahn) in a star around them (called REM ^^) and some of these lines can go to 200 kph (the Strasbourg-Mulhouse-Basel connection running every 1/2 hour).
And there are special cases like the cross-border CEVA (the only international RER in the world currently), which goes to 160 kph (120 kph in the tunnel), and the future CDG Exp connection which will go to 140 kph.
As you say RM, Europeans have to make do with the existing network, but even in Asia, tunnel speeds are generally lower because it is in the city center, and the connections are closer together.
Only the GTX in Seoul is a special case. It has few stations and is designed for 180kph.
Sydney Metro is a good example of the high speed metro I’d say. Large gaps between station and hitting 110km/h frequently.
Surprised that you are not mentioning Guangzhou's line 18 and 22
Philippines is currently building North South Commuter Rail (NSCR) which runs semi highspeed commuter and Airport Express.
If you were designing some of the underground systems today, would you consider having an express route and a stopping route within the city centre (you could potentially run two tunnels one on top of the other) and have an express service that only stops at key stops (stops where high capacity is expected) and have another line stopping at all stops. (I'm assuming the route is entirely underground, but if you were to have surface lines outside the city you would need to have 4 lines, express in the middle)
seams like the cities that are building faster metro lines, to improve their cities, build them in layers, with the slower lines that often stop more being closer to ground level, and the deeper they go, not only are they faster, but they also skip more stops
Sounds like the Gautrain system in Johannesburg/Pretoria would count as well.
One way to "move metro stations further apart", but still serve as many communities in a city, is to identify stations that are close to each other and merge their platforms together.
Or in the case of a London Underground station like Covent Garden, which is visible from Leicester Square and only served by lifts, put in a set of escalators from Covernt Garden directly to the platforms at Leicester Square and turn Covernt Garden into a second entrance for Leicester Square.
Leicester Square is also close to Picadilly Circus Station and the three stations could be fairly easily combined into a single "super station" with some new passenger tunnels and travellators.
A lot of London Underground stations could be "merged" with nearby stations, without closing any entrances.
When drawing a Pearl River metro map on Google Earth for an upcoming trip, I stumbled upon the amazing Line 18, which starts fin the north of Guangzhou will soon go all the way to Zhongshan in the south. That will make it 150 kilometres long and it will even be extended to Zhuhai later. It has a top speed of 160 km/h, which is quite impressive fro a metro. China plans to make the whole Pearl River region, which already has more skyscrapers than North America, a huge megacity. By far the largest city in the world. Line 18 will be the first line that crosses that whole city. The trains look aerodynamic like a high speed train, which is quite unusual for a metro. Projects like those show how far China is ahead of the rest of the world.
India intends to un-clog metro cities with Rapid Rail Transit System & New Delhi to Meerut is already underway. More to come for more cities.
A reason that China doesnt have much suburban railway services is that most part of these railways belong to China Railway, which focus on long-distance services rather than suburban and intercity services. Because the CR is not subject to local goverments, it doesnt have to cooperate with the develop plan of the city. The services frequency is low and the price is high. However, there are some successful and very interesting lines. The Jingshan Railway in Shanghai provides frequent and cheap metro-like services that runs at 160 km/h using High-speed trains. And Xihu Line in Xi'an is another interesting project. It uses old single-track railway and uses existing diesel locomotive on both side of the train to drive old passenger carriage (converted to metro style interior), which makes it looks like DMU. So the cost of this line is very low.
2 more 100 km lines in delhi, and Mumbai and hyderabad are planned for RRTS
The RRTS system is not a high speed metro but a regional transit system even though it does have an integrated metro system that can reach the top speeds of around 120 km/h. But even tho RRTS in itself is serves its purpose well by connecting three major cities the metro is very impractical and is a public stunt as the stations are distributed sparsely and go to the middle of nowhere while avoiding the densely populated major city centers of my city. I can already feel it being a logistical nightmare as my city already has a low population density to keep the metro financially stable apart from it just going nowhere.
What I think is amazing about high speed metro is that it could truly offer the optimised way to get from point a to point b in a city speedwise. For example, at the moment in Berlin, I can often transit faster with my bike than I would be able to with a car or the underground, the former due to traffic and the latter due to the lower average speed, due to low top speed and many stops.
Metros are more suited for inter neighborhood trips, trams and buses are more suited for intra neighborhood trips. But bikes should always outrun any neighborhood transit vehicles. People might still choose transit for comfort and convenience.
In Perth, the line to Mandurah station takes 53 minutes for 70 km, giving an average speed of 79 km/h and a top speed of 130 km/h.
I’m glad high-speed metros are becoming relevant. They have so much potential. I’m even thinking about in the back of my mind building such a line in Minecraft
Everyone deserves faster metros, so that they could reach their destination in time
In Berlin the S-Bahn hits 120km/h in sections
Great video! Would you call airport lines as high-speed metro lines? The metro to the Istanbul Airport has a top speed of 160+ km/h and it's underground and it's part of the metro system. It also has a few stops (albeit not as many as a typical metro line).
Caltrain might count as High Speed Metro with the new electrification finished and service about to start. They still have express trains as well obviously.
It's interesting how you perfectly hit the spot by saying going to high speed metro is like skipping landlines for cellphones. In India, we have got the high speed metro - RRTS before we got the high speed regional express (Vande Metro) which is similar to the rhein-ruhr regional express in germany.
Of course, it goes without saying that vande metro is a lot cheaper as it will use existing infrastructure and therefore can be quickly deployed to high demand city pairs across the country.
High-speed metros would be ideal for express routes in Toronto and the surrounding region. Currently it takes over 2hrs to get across Toronto via transit
With the traffic getting as bad as it is in Toronto, the GO train sometimes feels like high speed transit in comparison, even when it isn't. Pray for us.
Good video. I will say though with metro speeds, too often the focus is on top-end speed. As part of what you mentioned, acceleration/braking time, walksheds, bikesheds, station spacing, curves, hills, slow-zones, grade crossings, station design/depth/size, etc...can waste more time for passengers, then a train that can't high that really high speed. Trick with trains is making sure they don't go slow, before they go fast.
RRTS like rail was such a good Option for Vancouver - Langely - Abbotsford - Chilliwack. It is a lost opportunity.
HSR is fun as a tourist . But have you ever lived with it ? They never stop at my town and the average speed of the journys including the " last mile " is slow .
I agree I think this will become a bigger and bigger deal. We now have faster acceleration, open gangways, more compact doors and more clever suspension/etc. So I thnk it will become common to see a single train capable of doing 200km/h, slowing down extremely fast to handle a very tight radius, boarding an entire platform extremely fast with 4 doors a car, then closing doors and accelerating out like a rocket while people find seating via the open gangways.
I think that finding a way to make bi level or consists with mixed bi level more practical would also help a lot! For example if the top level is 2 by 2 seating and the bottom is benches with open gangways on both levels. A fairly small number of staircases (maybe one per car). Otherwise I think capacity on these lines will become an issue when you have people downtown going one or two blocks as well as people going over to the next city.
Very interesting. I’ve never consciously thought about it, but express (and, in the near future, high speed metros) ostensibly fill the same niche as regional/suburban rail does in cities where they exist.
It seems like the factors that determine whether express/high-speed metro vs regional/suburban rail is chosen depends on:
- when the network was built (more recent, more likely to be metro)
- the overall built urban form such as density and land use patterns (more density leads to metros; connecting to different nearby peri-urban cities leads to suburban rail generally)
- what existed in the city prior to the new line being built (if a city already has a suburban/regional rail system, more likely to expand it than build a new isolated line)
Really good video. Made me think. 🤔
This is another great video on high speed rail!
I hope Bengaluru (major city in India) also gets such system to connect satellite towns around the city instead of building metros (express metros)at such large distances by skipping alot of stations ....and even Suburban rails
You dont really have a need for it in the UK with the dense existing rail networks which are usually broken up into Inner Suburban services with a top speed of around 75mph and a mix of longitudinal and high density seating usually doing end to end route lengths of under an hour (traditionally also no toilets), usually short formations doing high frequency 3-6tph timetables. And Outer Suburban services which usually have a top speed of 90mph or 100mph doing route lengths of up to 2 hours, usually has toilets and no longitudinal seating sections, longer less frequent formations of maybe 2-3tph. You then usually have interleaved limited stop or express services where they omit station calls for higher average speeds before then getting to Regional Rail services with end to end routes that can be around 3 hours and speeds of 100-115mph and finally Intercity services with speeds of 125mph+ doing end to end routes of 6 around hours, occasionally longer.
Barcelona has a quite slow metro system, and I think Madrid’s line 8 is the only metro line that operates above 100 km/h in Spain. A high speed metro would be fantastic between Sabadell/Terrassa and Barcelona!
Complicated feelings coming from Melbourne. The Metro sets hitting 115km/h but only on certain line sections, and V/Line arguably filling both a pseudo-suburban role but also a regional role with its 160km/h sets.
I remember being really surprised to learn many country's suburban railways didn't have 115km/h as their regular top speed.
So what are the stop spacings in these high speed systems? Would you still need parallel system of normal metro to serve the core alongside the high speed system for larger distances?
Several kilometres, so yes!