Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizened Variations
Frequently run trains beat any alternative. The question is how cheaply can each train be run? The huge locomotive with double decker cars just does not cut it.
A particularly attractive DMU alternative. Not quite a tank, but, certainly an "armored car."
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/u...-dmu-cars.html
|
You first need to provide support for your first assertion before you can use it as the foundation for any additional conclusions.
You haven't made your case as to why, in this scenario, frequently run trains beat frequently run motorcoaches.
The benefits often attributed to a train include its higher capacity which is by far #1, but in this situation higher capacity isn't needed.
- Reduced noise is often cited when comparing buses with electric services like a streetcar or LRT, but a DMU isn't any quieter.
- Trains tend to have a smoother ride, but motorcoaches are much smoother than a regular city bus, and would drive primarily on high quality expressway. And still this is but one small advantage.
- The permanence of the route may also be cited, but the coaches can stop at the same stations.
- Trains may have lower fuel consumption per passenger due to lower rolling friction, but as mentioned in my previous post, that isn't an advantage when it requires buying and maintaining additional stock.
- Its theorized that trains have a psychological draw over buses in terms of attractiveness to passengers, but according to a study discussed on
streetsblog.org, "...the researchers pointed out that negative perceptions faded as familiarity with better bus systems increased." and "The more comfortable and useful a bus system becomes, the more the preference for rail disappears..."
Yet in GO's case, the buses have the advantage of already being part of the operator's fleet since it also provides express bus service to places not actually on a train route. And as frequency drops off on those routes off-peak, the buses can simply be rerouted to provide off-peak service elsewhere. And they also help take traffic off the rails off peak, which frees up space for other rail traffic providing a similar advantage to what the trains offer during peak by taking traffic off congested roads.
It appears that your assertion is either dogma or a knee-jerk assumption rather than one reflected in the situation. If we were talking about electrified service on dedicated tracks, then many of the factors I mentioned wouldn't apply. But is this case you need to demonstrate why we should assume the trains would automatically be better.