Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Let me add two more quibbles.

  • As I indicated in a comment I just posted in the first diary, the Frankfurt example is not really proper, even if you drop maintenance. For, in Frankfurt, onlyx a part of the passengers of those ICE trains is replaced. In SF, all passengers of the arriving train would have to leave, and all passengers of the arriving train would have to board. You need more time for that.

    A good model for this is East-West trains turning in Vienna West (Wien Westbahnhof), because most of the passengers are replaced there. The times are 10 minutes to 22 minutes for various trains.

  • You (plural) argue that the capacity of a two-track tunnel is enough, if the station before the terminal station is properly built. That's reasonable, however, implicit in that is the accemptance of cascading delays. Not big delays, only few minutes: e.g. when a HSR train is late, the on-time commuter train will have to wait a few minutes in 4th and Townsend. Still, that can be annoying.

With all that said, I thought of another, non-Spanish parallel where the tunnel access and the subterranean station was scaled properly, and it cost definitely more than the TBT budget: Antwerp Central, €1.6 billion.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Apr 18th, 2009 at 05:18:17 AM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Top Diaries

Occasional Series