Here in Berlin they used to have line running for the S-Bahn east of Ostbahnhof, for the stations Warschauer Straße and Ostkreuz. It was really annoying because when you just wanted to take the next S-Bahn into the city, you never knew which platform to wait on. They changed it to directional running with the rebuilding of those two stations, removing the grade separation east of Ostbahnhof but building a new grade separation east of Ostkreuz. It's so much better now because you can just get on the right platform, and then take the first S-Bahn that arrives on either side of the platform.
However, it's such a bummer that they decided to not rebuild the platform on the south ring curve used by the S9, which often leads to unnecessary transfers between the lines.
Oof it’s frustrating, I guess in 10-20 years everyone will realize it was a mistake to not have the service in directional running and the fly under will have to be built anyways which will take another 15 years plus the problem of the station platforms not being in between the two center tracks. I wish transit agencies would think bigger and further ahead these days as you said in another video the lack of imagination is really the biggest hindrance of efficient & future proof transit
This is probably due to how modern organizations are set up, where budget is drawn by board members with no direct expertise on the matter, who then praises those who can make cheap solutions, when what you really need both for now and the future is an expensive one.
In Helsinki we have line running with the directions reversed on the local tracks, so express trains run on the right and local trains run on the left. It lets you have line running with the disruption management benefits of directional running.
I think the gradients are good as you mentioned the benefits of the same island operation for different lines travelling in the same direction as you can then board the first available train without running between different island platforms
The Quad Track section of the Great Western Line between London Paddington and Didcot Parkway uses line running. Also, to the east of London, the District Line and the Tilbury & Southend Line share the same corridor in a quad-track layout as far as Upminster, and they have line running. Between Wembley Park and Harrow, there is a 6 track layout. If you are facing away from London, the layout is is from left to right is: Chiltern westbound, Chiltern eastbound, Metropolitan fast westbound, Met slow westbound, Met slow eastbound, Met fast eastbound. Between Wembley & Finchley Road it is the same layout except that all Metropolitans join the fast line and Jubilee becomes the slow line. So a sort-of mixture of the two approaches. In the quad track District + Piccadilly section, the slow District line trains take the outside tracks and the fast Piccadilly trains take the middle tracks.
The lines out of Waterloo are pretty interesting in this regard. It basically begins with 8 tracks (2 quad track lines side by side). The South West Main Line down to Weymouth runs as line running (with slow up/dn on the outer edge and fast up/dn inside) down as far as Wimbledon Park depot, at which point there is a flyover to turn it into directional running just before it reaches Wimbledon station. Beyond that there are a bunch of branches off, all with flyovers/unders (except one flat junction). I'm not sure of the reason for the line running out of Waterloo here. It may be historical due to the station once being 3 separate stations. Then you have the Windsor Lines that are quad tracks in directional running config, except for the outer most track which is classed as a "reversible" line. At the International junction, a 2 track flyover branches off from the middle of the lines, with down slow and up fast line passing under the flyover and the reversible line passing around the outside. It's 3 tracks through Queenstown Rd, and then it turns into quad track directional running with the fast lines on the outside and the slow lines on the inside down as far as Barnes (a flat junction), at which point the line splits into 2 dual track lines and fast and slow trains leap frog each other at certain passing loops. It's bloody complicated, but it does (for the most part) work quite well.
@@mdhazeldine If you have directional tracks in the run in, line running would be a big advantage at terminus stations, because you'll won't have to jump over more than one track to find an exit track, so less switching. Ideally, if you had a 4 track mainline, it'd be directional running all the way, but the middle 2 tracks would swap (grade separation) for the run into the terminus! Of course there's lots of other things going on with track layouts at termini anyway, and probably a lot of bidirectional running and the like to give operational flexibility.
Alas however some of the benefits of the London Underground instances of directional running have been lost. Originally trains could and sometimes did switch to the tracks used by the 'other' line, not just at times of disruption but to the north of London early morning Metropolitan line trains were actually timetabled to travel on Jubilee line tracks plus call at its intermediate stations between Finchley Road and Wembley Park. This was a hangover from when the route was only served by the privately owned Metropolitan Railway. Nowadays incompatibility with different automated train control systems on the two Underground lines prevent this - except on the access tracks to Neasden depot, where special arrangements apply. In the past year or so the western route where District and Piccadilly line trains travel side by side was also separated, as part of plans to convert part of the District line to automated train control. Depending on the ATO technology used it *might* be possible to reinstate full interoperability over the 'other' lines' tracks when funding to automate the Piccadilly line becomes available. As an aside, the use of a compatible ATO technology will also make life much simpler in the north-west of London where Piccadilly line tube trains and Metropolitan line subsurface trains use (share) the same tracks between Rayners Lane and Uxbridge. re: the line running east London route between Bromley By Bow and Upminster, the entire route was built by a railway company which eventually became part of British Railways ... the tracks used by the District line were specially built for it to use as a guest but were also fully accessible to trains operated by the owning company. This all changed when British Railways electrified their trains in the early 1960s with the two sets of tracks being fully separated. In addition, to facilitate easy cross-platform interchange by trains travelling in the same direction westbound District line trains at Barking station were relocated to a different platform. This required grade separation - and was achieved with a flyunder and a flyover at opposite ends of the station.
I wanted youbto talk about the Belmont flyover in Chicago sooo badly!! These images in Toronto look so much like what we already have in Chicago at Belmont (though Belmont serves a third line as well). Love the content!!
Well said. And there are even more benefits of directional running: - It enables you to run different service patterns on both lines without sacrificing capacity. If you have both local and express services with line-based running, the local services get in the way of the express services and you need to restrict local service on one line and restrict express service on the other (like you said at 3:10). With directional running, you can run any combination of local or express service without significant capacity impacts. - Having one pair of local tracks for both lines enables you to add local stations on those tracks without affecting express or intercity trains. - Within the Union Station corridor, this also reduces the number of platforms required. The combined LSE+Stouffville local tracks probably only need one pair of platforms in Union, with short dwells and a train every few minutes. Express services need more platform capacity because some of the services will turn back, the trains have lower door capacity, and a higher proportion of riders will get off at Union. Bottom line: you likely need 8 platforms with line running (4 per line), but only 6 with directional running (4 express + 2 local).
An upgrade to "basic" line running is to switch the handiness of one side of the tracks. That way the middle two tracks have the same direction of travel. If you have bi-directional tracks and enough crossovers, you can relatively easily switch to three track running if one track is blocked for some reason (broken train, faulty track infrastructure, maintenance, etc.). In that mode, the trains normally using the middle tracks are combined on one track, and the blocked track can be avoided. If the blocked track is one of the middle tracks, just simply combine the trains on the middle tracks on to the other middle track. If the blocked one is a side track, again combine the two on the middle and run them on the track further away from the blockage and move the traffic from the blocked track to the other middle track. (Hard to explain without a picture...) Helsinki area in Finland uses this version of line running, and it has proved to be advantageous.
This is something that seems like it should be obvious, but maybe not so if you're not thinking about things in a customer-centric way. So much for the Den-en-toshi Line style express-local transfers I miss so much... Thanks for double clicking on this, Reece!
Also, while all four tracks should be able to accomodate trains in both directions, this should not be a concept to base everyday service on. On branchlines ok, but on mainlines, sheduled trains in opposite direction on the same track should be out of question. It's less safe as can be seen in Schäftlarn and Bad Aibling and it slows everything down.
CTA in Chicago just implemented an improvement like this, the Belmont Flyover, so that Brown Line no longer needs to cross over Purple Express and Red Lines in the fashion described at 3:52
For transport modding fans, I recommend "Nimby Rails", a fairly realistic game based on open street maps and real population values. It is still in Beta but is promising. available on steam
Try out Transport fever 2 or even cities skylines, those make you have to work a bit on transport. Especially Transport Fever 2 as that makes you work loads to make a good transport network with funding and working on getting people around.
The Keihin Tohoku Line and Yamanote Sen in Tokyo Have done a great job of directional running providing that benefit of cross platform transfers. Cross platform transfer is great here as the Keihin runs express while the Yamanote runs local and there are a number of stations along this corridor which warrant these transfers. Is cross platform transfer really necessary though between the Lakeshore and Stouffville lines? I don’t know the stats but I’d figure that inbound, the majority of passengers on the Stouffville finish their journeys at Union
JR East lines for the most part still seem to have a heavy degree of line running. For example, most of the Chuo line is line-running except at Ochanomizu, the only stop where you can transfer between local (Chuo-Sobu line) and express (Chuo line) via cross-platform transfers. Unlike the Keihin-Tohoku and Yamanote lines, the outer-suburban lines (e.g. Ueno-Tokyo line, which skip many Keihin-Tohoku stops, as well as the Yokosuka line) remain separated. This is despite coming across many, many flyovers, ironically.
Please do a vídeo on how and why transit can facilitate the life of the elderly people, providing an option for them when they can't drive anymore. Many people don't think about this.
This "innovative" design is a major gripe I have with LIRR service around the Queens/Nassau border (Port Washington Branch notwithstanding), especially between Queens Village and Bellerose.
Great video! I found that station layout is an important aspect of service planning, especially If you consider the (planned) services and it specific location (above or below ground). On a seperate note: Are you interested in producing a video about Stuttgart 21? I live not to far from the area and could give you some inside views. Also, Stuttgart has some very interesting transit, partially because Stuttgart topography is ... challenging I should say: A massive light rail, a rack railway (that is not a tourist gadgetbahn), cable railway and S-Bahn services.
I look at Stuttgart with a degree of envy - because instead of simply replacing its trams / streetcars with buses they upgraded to a light rail Stadtbahn (city railway) which is mostly (but not wholly) segregated from road traffic. I wish that similar had been done in the larger British conurbations.
An LRT is going to be operated on August 17th this year, but they cannot make a grade separation on the Y Junction because under the tracks, there is a toll road but above it, there is a High Voltage Cable Line.
My favourite type of rmtransit video :) Your point about saving on one side of union but having to expend on the other makes sense. But I think that the west side of union will need to be completely redone anyway (if we’re to do spadina go properly, at least)
The optimal solution would bebuild as directional running but at the same time isolate the lines from an electrical point of view for example and in general avoid crossings, in order to keep the lines completely independent. Some switches could be installed to be used only when there are issues on the main line but when you isolate everything you have so much higher reliability that it easier in general to fix issues and resume normal operations quickly. Terminals should be built with keeping the lines separated and there is where you would need some underpasses and overpasses to keep lines independent.
I was gradually becoming convinced that RMTransit is at least one of the major gods.... until I learned that he is an Anti-Pineapplist. He is now merely a demi-god in my eyes.
It's kind of interesting to see line quadruplication over the years in some places and see how the running trends have changed. There main Western line (at least through the inner west) and the Ilawarra line in Sydney are both line running; the former with six tracks and the latter with four. It reflects the thinking of the railways architects decades ago. Stations on the Illawarra line have platforms on all tracks with a mix of islands and edge, but this does give some flexibility in which lines have fast services and which do not. The Western line does not have that flexibility and most stations have platforms on only the Local tracks. History is fun. :-) And then there's the East Hills line. It spent a lot of its life as a single track and then in the space of only a few decades, was upgraded to two and then four tracks. The duplication was straightforward - all stations already had island platforms. The quaduplication, though, they went for directional running with the fast trains on the outside. This means they didn't have to build more platforms. It was an interesting variation.
Not always directional running is the best choice, sometimes the right choice is hybrid solution with part of the line with directional running and part with line running, with grade separated infrastructure for running mode change built in the most convenient place. If there isn't any station with commuter only stop between junction and main station the best choice is lines running. (In Italy almost all the quad tracks section use directional running)
RMTransit: Stouffville line runs directly next to the sidewalk without even a fence! me: seriously!? (checks google maps) ah well there`s your problem.
Unfortunately San Diego is thinking about branching an airport trolley off of a single pair of tracks that already has two trolley lines on it via a flat junction. But everyone I talk to on this subject says, don't worry, just spend a gazillion extra dollars to quad track later! For trips between Airport and Downtown an APM connecting the airport to the Trolley at Middletown Trolley station would provide 5.75 max wait times (including transfers) vs 15 minutes for a trolley. And existing trolley lines could then double their frequency with no quad tracking.
There is however, one drawback with directionals. Because of the added convenience, people tend to congregate on the faster trains and add to the crowds and possible delays. The convenience is a good thing in most cases, but it's a double-edged sword in places like Tokyo that have issues with crowds. So certain quad tracks (like the Joban and Chuo Main Lines) are deliberately designed as line-running to prevent cross-platform transfers and even out the crowds.
Hi! I really love your videos and I'm interested if you're planning on making a video about Budapest's metro System, I'd be really interested in the history of it as it had the first electric metro
HEY Hawaiian pizza is good. People just don't drain the pineapple properly and it soaks into the crust. When drained and dried a little the oven chars them a little and it's great
Reminds me of the Ome "short-circuit" line (青梅短絡線) at Tachikawa Station in Tokyo--a single-track overpass that allows westbound Chuo line trains to branch off to the Ome line without crossing the eastbound tracks.
Interesting and thought provoking video. Some of the thoughts: Even if the corridor is direction-running, at the junction it essentially converts to line-running. Doing this via a fly-over a few km west of the junction may be cheaper an easier that at the junction because it reduces the need for land acquisition, traffic disruption, resident (nimby) impact. The cross-platform transfer advantages would only accrue to people transferring from eastbound to easbound or westbound to westbound transfers. Not really that useful. And they would only possible if you had lots of island platforms (removing the speed advantages you identify for direction-running.)
Another "innovative" option with line-running might be to have Scarborough station still have only outer platforms, but serve them with the red line in the outwards direction, and the brown line in the inward direction. (This is assuming that most passengers in that station want to go to/from the city.)
Grade separation.... Yeah... Edmonton is bad for that. The new station up near NAIT was an absolute disaster when it opened, and it's still a huge issue for both vehicle traffic and the trains.
Can you do a video on how Baltimore's light rail, subway, and MARC lines don't mesh into a coherent transit network? You could also talk about how the Charm City needs more mass transit and how the proposed Red Line and other projects could help both of the above issues. Love your videos!
Can you share how to design a metro map in a city being built totally from scratch ? Say if the planners are focusing more on metros than cars and streets. Preferably if it’s capable of lifting all the residents.
They could build a "cheap" flyunder, with steep grades not suitable for diesel operation, and electrify the whole line for less cost than a very long sloped flyunder that might not even be feasible so close to Scar Jct station.
Look at NYC. You may put all the tracks on the same level, and no overpass/underpass is needed. You will need a good timetable and several turnouts to direct trains at the Y junction when they separate. One service runs as EXP is a better way to move people more efficiently, and ONLY if you have very frequent train services. Otherwise, would you like to get off your regular train and wait for another half an hour for the EXP?
I believe Anne-Marie Aitkens said on Twitter that the decision on the Scarborough Junction Grade Separation has been left to the OnCorr winner to decide as it is tied to the operating pattern as you point out. Hopefully we'll get some news on that soon.
Look at MTR Tung Chung/ Airport Express track layout. GO transit should be built like MTR Tung Chung Line. No wonder North America rail project are so bad!
It would be even better for you to explain the situation with games like openttd or simutrans that way viewers can understand the situation more easily
Your content is great but you really need to ramp up slowly on topics. When you are looking to discuss technical topics like grade separation, maybe a good idea would be to explain what that is first? I assume you know your audience which is why you don't explain it, but for non-transit nerds like myself who are interested in such topics but don't have the background knowledge, although I WANT to watch your videos, your delivery makes me lose interest after a few minutes. Please take this as constructive criticism and not plain hating because I want you to succeed and am a subscriber for a reason.
Here in Berlin they used to have line running for the S-Bahn east of Ostbahnhof, for the stations Warschauer Straße and Ostkreuz. It was really annoying because when you just wanted to take the next S-Bahn into the city, you never knew which platform to wait on. They changed it to directional running with the rebuilding of those two stations, removing the grade separation east of Ostbahnhof but building a new grade separation east of Ostkreuz. It's so much better now because you can just get on the right platform, and then take the first S-Bahn that arrives on either side of the platform.
However, it's such a bummer that they decided to not rebuild the platform on the south ring curve used by the S9, which often leads to unnecessary transfers between the lines.
Oof it’s frustrating, I guess in 10-20 years everyone will realize it was a mistake to not have the service in directional running and the fly under will have to be built anyways which will take another 15 years plus the problem of the station platforms not being in between the two center tracks. I wish transit agencies would think bigger and further ahead these days as you said in another video the lack of imagination is really the biggest hindrance of efficient & future proof transit
Absolutely yeah, I do think we will realize and have to fix stuff at great cost to us in the future.
This is probably due to how modern organizations are set up, where budget is drawn by board members with no direct expertise on the matter, who then praises those who can make cheap solutions, when what you really need both for now and the future is an expensive one.
In Helsinki we have line running with the directions reversed on the local tracks, so express trains run on the right and local trains run on the left. It lets you have line running with the disruption management benefits of directional running.
I think the gradients are good as you mentioned the benefits of the same island operation for different lines travelling in the same direction as you can then board the first available train without running between different island platforms
Yep for sure, and that type of convenience is really good!
The Quad Track section of the Great Western Line between London Paddington and Didcot Parkway uses line running.
Also, to the east of London, the District Line and the Tilbury & Southend Line share the same corridor in a quad-track layout as far as Upminster, and they have line running.
Between Wembley Park and Harrow, there is a 6 track layout. If you are facing away from London, the layout is is from left to right is: Chiltern westbound, Chiltern eastbound, Metropolitan fast westbound, Met slow westbound, Met slow eastbound, Met fast eastbound. Between Wembley & Finchley Road it is the same layout except that all Metropolitans join the fast line and Jubilee becomes the slow line. So a sort-of mixture of the two approaches.
In the quad track District + Piccadilly section, the slow District line trains take the outside tracks and the fast Piccadilly trains take the middle tracks.
Indeed London has loads of layouts
The lines out of Waterloo are pretty interesting in this regard. It basically begins with 8 tracks (2 quad track lines side by side). The South West Main Line down to Weymouth runs as line running (with slow up/dn on the outer edge and fast up/dn inside) down as far as Wimbledon Park depot, at which point there is a flyover to turn it into directional running just before it reaches Wimbledon station. Beyond that there are a bunch of branches off, all with flyovers/unders (except one flat junction). I'm not sure of the reason for the line running out of Waterloo here. It may be historical due to the station once being 3 separate stations. Then you have the Windsor Lines that are quad tracks in directional running config, except for the outer most track which is classed as a "reversible" line. At the International junction, a 2 track flyover branches off from the middle of the lines, with down slow and up fast line passing under the flyover and the reversible line passing around the outside. It's 3 tracks through Queenstown Rd, and then it turns into quad track directional running with the fast lines on the outside and the slow lines on the inside down as far as Barnes (a flat junction), at which point the line splits into 2 dual track lines and fast and slow trains leap frog each other at certain passing loops. It's bloody complicated, but it does (for the most part) work quite well.
@@mdhazeldine If you have directional tracks in the run in, line running would be a big advantage at terminus stations, because you'll won't have to jump over more than one track to find an exit track, so less switching. Ideally, if you had a 4 track mainline, it'd be directional running all the way, but the middle 2 tracks would swap (grade separation) for the run into the terminus! Of course there's lots of other things going on with track layouts at termini anyway, and probably a lot of bidirectional running and the like to give operational flexibility.
Alas however some of the benefits of the London Underground instances of directional running have been lost.
Originally trains could and sometimes did switch to the tracks used by the 'other' line, not just at times of disruption but to the north of London early morning Metropolitan line trains were actually timetabled to travel on Jubilee line tracks plus call at its intermediate stations between Finchley Road and Wembley Park. This was a hangover from when the route was only served by the privately owned Metropolitan Railway.
Nowadays incompatibility with different automated train control systems on the two Underground lines prevent this - except on the access tracks to Neasden depot, where special arrangements apply.
In the past year or so the western route where District and Piccadilly line trains travel side by side was also separated, as part of plans to convert part of the District line to automated train control. Depending on the ATO technology used it *might* be possible to reinstate full interoperability over the 'other' lines' tracks when funding to automate the Piccadilly line becomes available.
As an aside, the use of a compatible ATO technology will also make life much simpler in the north-west of London where Piccadilly line tube trains and Metropolitan line subsurface trains use (share) the same tracks between Rayners Lane and Uxbridge.
re: the line running east London route between Bromley By Bow and Upminster, the entire route was built by a railway company which eventually became part of British Railways ... the tracks used by the District line were specially built for it to use as a guest but were also fully accessible to trains operated by the owning company. This all changed when British Railways electrified their trains in the early 1960s with the two sets of tracks being fully separated.
In addition, to facilitate easy cross-platform interchange by trains travelling in the same direction westbound District line trains at Barking station were relocated to a different platform. This required grade separation - and was achieved with a flyunder and a flyover at opposite ends of the station.
@@mdhazeldine @_@ Confuzing
I wanted youbto talk about the Belmont flyover in Chicago sooo badly!! These images in Toronto look so much like what we already have in Chicago at Belmont (though Belmont serves a third line as well). Love the content!!
Well said. And there are even more benefits of directional running:
- It enables you to run different service patterns on both lines without sacrificing capacity. If you have both local and express services with line-based running, the local services get in the way of the express services and you need to restrict local service on one line and restrict express service on the other (like you said at 3:10). With directional running, you can run any combination of local or express service without significant capacity impacts.
- Having one pair of local tracks for both lines enables you to add local stations on those tracks without affecting express or intercity trains.
- Within the Union Station corridor, this also reduces the number of platforms required. The combined LSE+Stouffville local tracks probably only need one pair of platforms in Union, with short dwells and a train every few minutes. Express services need more platform capacity because some of the services will turn back, the trains have lower door capacity, and a higher proportion of riders will get off at Union. Bottom line: you likely need 8 platforms with line running (4 per line), but only 6 with directional running (4 express + 2 local).
An upgrade to "basic" line running is to switch the handiness of one side of the tracks. That way the middle two tracks have the same direction of travel. If you have bi-directional tracks and enough crossovers, you can relatively easily switch to three track running if one track is blocked for some reason (broken train, faulty track infrastructure, maintenance, etc.).
In that mode, the trains normally using the middle tracks are combined on one track, and the blocked track can be avoided. If the blocked track is one of the middle tracks, just simply combine the trains on the middle tracks on to the other middle track. If the blocked one is a side track, again combine the two on the middle and run them on the track further away from the blockage and move the traffic from the blocked track to the other middle track. (Hard to explain without a picture...)
Helsinki area in Finland uses this version of line running, and it has proved to be advantageous.
This is something that seems like it should be obvious, but maybe not so if you're not thinking about things in a customer-centric way. So much for the Den-en-toshi Line style express-local transfers I miss so much... Thanks for double clicking on this, Reece!
Absolutely! A lot of things aren't immediately obvious too!
Also, while all four tracks should be able to accomodate trains in both directions, this should not be a concept to base everyday service on. On branchlines ok, but on mainlines, sheduled trains in opposite direction on the same track should be out of question. It's less safe as can be seen in Schäftlarn and Bad Aibling and it slows everything down.
Oh of course, it's also just very inefficient.
This is the problem presented by the yet-unfinished Elmont station.
That was seriously a super compelling argument for directional running over line running. Very clear and concise.
CTA in Chicago just implemented an improvement like this, the Belmont Flyover, so that Brown Line no longer needs to cross over Purple Express and Red Lines in the fashion described at 3:52
For transport modding fans, I recommend "Nimby Rails", a fairly realistic game based on open street maps and real population values. It is still in Beta but is promising. available on steam
Try out Transport fever 2 or even cities skylines, those make you have to work a bit on transport.
Especially Transport Fever 2 as that makes you work loads to make a good transport network with funding and working on getting people around.
@@Moshimulations already have it ^^
The Keihin Tohoku Line and Yamanote Sen in Tokyo Have done a great job of directional running providing that benefit of cross platform transfers. Cross platform transfer is great here as the Keihin runs express while the Yamanote runs local and there are a number of stations along this corridor which warrant these transfers. Is cross platform transfer really necessary though between the Lakeshore and Stouffville lines? I don’t know the stats but I’d figure that inbound, the majority of passengers on the Stouffville finish their journeys at Union
JR East lines for the most part still seem to have a heavy degree of line running. For example, most of the Chuo line is line-running except at Ochanomizu, the only stop where you can transfer between local (Chuo-Sobu line) and express (Chuo line) via cross-platform transfers.
Unlike the Keihin-Tohoku and Yamanote lines, the outer-suburban lines (e.g. Ueno-Tokyo line, which skip many Keihin-Tohoku stops, as well as the Yokosuka line) remain separated.
This is despite coming across many, many flyovers, ironically.
Please do a vídeo on how and why transit can facilitate the life of the elderly people, providing an option for them when they can't drive anymore. Many people don't think about this.
This "innovative" design is a major gripe I have with LIRR service around the Queens/Nassau border (Port Washington Branch notwithstanding), especially between Queens Village and Bellerose.
Great video! I found that station layout is an important aspect of service planning, especially If you consider the (planned) services and it specific location (above or below ground).
On a seperate note: Are you interested in producing a video about Stuttgart 21? I live not to far from the area and could give you some inside views. Also, Stuttgart has some very interesting transit, partially because Stuttgart topography is ... challenging I should say: A massive light rail, a rack railway (that is not a tourist gadgetbahn), cable railway and S-Bahn services.
It absolutely is critical, I may do a video on S21 but the project is unfortunately so heated that I'm not sure it's a good idea.
I look at Stuttgart with a degree of envy - because instead of simply replacing its trams / streetcars with buses they upgraded to a light rail Stadtbahn (city railway) which is mostly (but not wholly) segregated from road traffic. I wish that similar had been done in the larger British conurbations.
An LRT is going to be operated on August 17th this year, but they cannot make a grade separation on the Y Junction because under the tracks, there is a toll road but above it, there is a High Voltage Cable Line.
Line tuning on metro, directional running on regional rail. Got it.
My favourite type of rmtransit video :)
Your point about saving on one side of union but having to expend on the other makes sense. But I think that the west side of union will need to be completely redone anyway (if we’re to do spadina go properly, at least)
Oh it'll absolutely have to be redone for Spadina, but we don't seem to be planning on it :/
The optimal solution would bebuild as directional running but at the same time isolate the lines from an electrical point of view for example and in general avoid crossings, in order to keep the lines completely independent.
Some switches could be installed to be used only when there are issues on the main line but when you isolate everything you have so much higher reliability that it easier in general to fix issues and resume normal operations quickly.
Terminals should be built with keeping the lines separated and there is where you would need some underpasses and overpasses to keep lines independent.
I was gradually becoming convinced that RMTransit is at least one of the major gods.... until I learned that he is an Anti-Pineapplist. He is now merely a demi-god in my eyes.
I just thought the exact same 😂😂
It's kind of interesting to see line quadruplication over the years in some places and see how the running trends have changed.
There main Western line (at least through the inner west) and the Ilawarra line in Sydney are both line running; the former with six tracks and the latter with four. It reflects the thinking of the railways architects decades ago. Stations on the Illawarra line have platforms on all tracks with a mix of islands and edge, but this does give some flexibility in which lines have fast services and which do not. The Western line does not have that flexibility and most stations have platforms on only the Local tracks. History is fun. :-)
And then there's the East Hills line. It spent a lot of its life as a single track and then in the space of only a few decades, was upgraded to two and then four tracks. The duplication was straightforward - all stations already had island platforms. The quaduplication, though, they went for directional running with the fast trains on the outside. This means they didn't have to build more platforms. It was an interesting variation.
Not always directional running is the best choice, sometimes the right choice is hybrid solution with part of the line with directional running and part with line running, with grade separated infrastructure for running mode change built in the most convenient place. If there isn't any station with commuter only stop between junction and main station the best choice is lines running. (In Italy almost all the quad tracks section use directional running)
RMTransit: Stouffville line runs directly next to the sidewalk without even a fence!
me: seriously!? (checks google maps) ah well there`s your problem.
Unfortunately San Diego is thinking about branching an airport trolley off of a single pair of tracks that already has two trolley lines on it via a flat junction. But everyone I talk to on this subject says, don't worry, just spend a gazillion extra dollars to quad track later! For trips between Airport and Downtown an APM connecting the airport to the Trolley at Middletown Trolley station would provide 5.75 max wait times (including transfers) vs 15 minutes for a trolley. And existing trolley lines could then double their frequency with no quad tracking.
There is however, one drawback with directionals. Because of the added convenience, people tend to congregate on the faster trains and add to the crowds and possible delays. The convenience is a good thing in most cases, but it's a double-edged sword in places like Tokyo that have issues with crowds. So certain quad tracks (like the Joban and Chuo Main Lines) are deliberately designed as line-running to prevent cross-platform transfers and even out the crowds.
Hi! I really love your videos and I'm interested if you're planning on making a video about Budapest's metro System, I'd be really interested in the history of it as it had the first electric metro
It's so cute
HEY Hawaiian pizza is good. People just don't drain the pineapple properly and it soaks into the crust. When drained and dried a little the oven chars them a little and it's great
Reminds me of the Ome "short-circuit" line (青梅短絡線) at Tachikawa Station in Tokyo--a single-track overpass that allows westbound Chuo line trains to branch off to the Ome line without crossing the eastbound tracks.
I think that they should add a flyover beyond the station to the west in the future once there is more certainty around rolling stock etc.
Interesting and thought provoking video. Some of the thoughts:
Even if the corridor is direction-running, at the junction it essentially converts to line-running. Doing this via a fly-over a few km west of the junction may be cheaper an easier that at the junction because it reduces the need for land acquisition, traffic disruption, resident (nimby) impact.
The cross-platform transfer advantages would only accrue to people transferring from eastbound to easbound or westbound to westbound transfers. Not really that useful. And they would only possible if you had lots of island platforms (removing the speed advantages you identify for direction-running.)
Another "innovative" option with line-running might be to have Scarborough station still have only outer platforms, but serve them with the red line in the outwards direction, and the brown line in the inward direction. (This is assuming that most passengers in that station want to go to/from the city.)
Why hasn’t Toronto transport hired this guy yet?
Generally I agree with Mr. Martin but I love a good slice of hawaiian pizza.
Grade separation.... Yeah... Edmonton is bad for that. The new station up near NAIT was an absolute disaster when it opened, and it's still a huge issue for both vehicle traffic and the trains.
Pineapple truly DOES belong on Pizza. You savage!
When you said Metrolink, I was confused. I thought you were talking about LA.
It's funny that America doesn't think long term in passenger segment
Can you do a video on how Baltimore's light rail, subway, and MARC lines don't mesh into a coherent transit network? You could also talk about how the Charm City needs more mass transit and how the proposed Red Line and other projects could help both of the above issues. Love your videos!
Can you share how to design a metro map in a city being built totally from scratch ? Say if the planners are focusing more on metros than cars and streets. Preferably if it’s capable of lifting all the residents.
They could build a "cheap" flyunder, with steep grades not suitable for diesel operation, and electrify the whole line for less cost than a very long sloped flyunder that might not even be feasible so close to Scar Jct station.
Look at NYC. You may put all the tracks on the same level, and no overpass/underpass is needed. You will need a good timetable and several turnouts to direct trains at the Y junction when they separate. One service runs as EXP is a better way to move people more efficiently, and ONLY if you have very frequent train services. Otherwise, would you like to get off your regular train and wait for another half an hour for the EXP?
I believe Anne-Marie Aitkens said on Twitter that the decision on the Scarborough Junction Grade Separation has been left to the OnCorr winner to decide as it is tied to the operating pattern as you point out. Hopefully we'll get some news on that soon.
There's one more RMTransit wasn't explained Jakarta Bandung high speed rail & Manggarai become the Central station
Can you bring back the demystified series?
It never ended, I did a video a few weeks ago!
Look at MTR Tung Chung/ Airport Express track layout. GO transit should be built like MTR Tung Chung Line. No wonder North America rail project are so bad!
It would be even better for you to explain the situation with games like openttd or simutrans
that way viewers can understand the situation more easily
I would like to know what’s the difference between line running and directional running so I can understand the video
6:23
3:35
@RMTransit Can you put the formal cc pls? The automatic cc is hard to see.
It might be easier when you watch at a slower speed
We don't have captions pre made for every video unfortunately, in the long term adding some is a goal
Sorry Rees, pineapple DOES belong on pizza. Otherwise you couldn't make a Hawaiian.
Oops, sorry Reece, I misspelled your name!
Your content is great but you really need to ramp up slowly on topics. When you are looking to discuss technical topics like grade separation, maybe a good idea would be to explain what that is first? I assume you know your audience which is why you don't explain it, but for non-transit nerds like myself who are interested in such topics but don't have the background knowledge, although I WANT to watch your videos, your delivery makes me lose interest after a few minutes. Please take this as constructive criticism and not plain hating because I want you to succeed and am a subscriber for a reason.
Pineapple belongs on pizza if the person wants it. I like potatoes personally
I will never be able to look at the channel the same way after hearing Reese's racist opinion on pineapple on pizza. Why can't we accept all foods?
Pineapple on pizza is anathema.
Thumbs down for saying pineapple doesn't belong on pizza