04-15-2016, 09:57 AM
(04-15-2016, 09:27 AM)SammyOES Wrote:(04-15-2016, 08:28 AM)MidTowner Wrote: Especially as current speeds are not much worse than car travel, it seems like the train is losing because you can only take it from here to Toronto a few times a day, and even between Toronto and Montreal only ten times a day. If people in London or Woodstock or Kingston (or wherever in The Corridor) could go downtown and catch a train to Toronto at any given hour of the day, then that starts to make more sense than driving.
I think the train speed needs to be noticeably better than car speed for it to really catch on - regardless of frequency. Cars have a lot of unfair advantages in people's minds:
1. They underestimate the cost of driving [Not to re-open the discussion, but just to make the point]
2. There's a freedom associated with a car that's not associated with taking a train [Even if some of it is a 'false' freedom because traffic/parking considerations wouldn't let them go where they want easily anyway]
3. The pain of driving [traffic] often isn't felt until after the decision to drive is made and you're in the car.
The whole point of VIA Rail's argument is that the freedom is more about schedule flexibility than speed. Schedule flexibility is probably cheaper to achieve than speed as well. And VIA wants to make the additional argument that you can then do stuff in the train which you can't in the car.
(04-15-2016, 09:45 AM)SammyOES Wrote: Does anyone ever talk about acceleration? That does seem way more important than top-speed. Especially if it means not having to skip a number of small/medium cities.
Yes, people are focussing on that with respect to high-speed trains in Europe now. Passenger loading/unloading always takes time, but if you can accelerate faster, you don't lose quite as much time at a stop.