Steve wrote:
Stephen Down wrote:
If I have a large city, I might want to run passenger trains on
half a dozen lines away from the station. That could account for
seven platforms on its own, if the lines were high intensity. And
then more, if I'm delivering goods, food or mail.
You'd take up more space that way then with a simple airport, and
you wouldn't have to build tracks. Planes fly faster from point A
to point B than trains do from point A to point B.
Let's try again.
I might want to run passenger trains on ... <wait for it> ... half a
dozen lines away from the station. It's called a network. It is often
more profitable to run a network of train services to the smaller cities
than to put an airport in each.
The other advantage of a station is that it can handle a lot more
passengers. For example, even a double header train can carry 320
passengers, which is more than most planes. With a sufficiently good
track layout, several trains can enter and leave the station at the same
time. The trains don't take very long to load. Compare this with an
airport. Planes spend ages manoeuvring around when on the ground. Only
one plane can be taxiing, taking off or landing at any one time. If
planes are regularly waiting a long time for a space to land they are
likely to crash. That doesn't happen with trains.
Yes, planes fly quicker from A to B. But over a medium distance service,
a fast train will usually be quicker than the equivalent number of
people on sub-sonic planes.
--
The best way to save face is to keep the lower part shut
email address spam-trapped
see if yooo can spot it