The magic of through running
62 comments
·June 17, 2025derr1
Through running in Tokyo is next level. You can catch a train from the airport, which then turns into a subway, then later on it becomes a train again.
anileated
> a train from the airport, which then turns into a subway, then later on it becomes a train again.
This is confusing.
Subway is already a kind of train.
You mean to say that the train partly runs underground? That is pretty common. I actually can't remember any city where airport connecting train does not do the same at some point or another.
What's kinda interesting is does that train classify as metro transit that goes slightly beyond city to airport and such (making many stops all the way) or an distance intercity train that happens to stop both at airport and city? Or does it change this classification? That would be actually unusual.
bluGill
Most subways have move above ground sections than underground. That is why the article uses the term "metro" not subway - it better describes something useful about the system. A Metro is a system that runs completely separate from other traffic - this forces bridges or tunnels where other traffic needs to cross it.
4hg4ufxhy
Typically trains are powered from above, and subways are powered from the rails. Perhaps this is the distinction, rather than running underground.
ethbr1
>> In Germany, Britain, America, and France, the period of explosive growth of railways mainly took place in the mid-to-late nineteenth century.
There's a curious European vs American distinction that the article doesn't address -- many modern, large American cities are younger than that.
Especially southern and western ones that grew up on rail lines.
There, the only thing that would be needed is the political will to fund and build new bypass, outside-the-city freight track to free up the contiguous in-city rights of way.
steveBK123
Yes that's one of the big distinctions. Even American cities that existed then are drastically different and larger than they were back then.
I mean even in NYC in 1850s, 42nd street was practically "uptown" and what we now call "uptown" was farmland. Brooklyn & Queens which are now the population centers of NYC with ~2.5M residents each had a grand total of under 200K back then. At the time Manhattan had 500K residents (2.5x BK&QNS 200K) while it has 1.7M now (1/3 the ~5M across BK&QNS now).
So the population center even within our biggest city has completely shifted from the time our railroads were built out.
senkora
You may enjoy this video showing the expansion of NYC over time from the first Dutch settlement to the present day: https://youtu.be/f6U7YFPrz6Y
1842 is at 2:55 in the video.
porridgeraisin
Yep this is what happened in my home city in india as well. Our property which my ancestors purchased for dirt cheap on the outskirts of the city is now smack in the center and valued higher. Populations have also shifted.
We always had a good train network around here. When the shift happened though, the "hub" stations have not really moved. Today the main stations are still where the old center of town was. As a result, taking the train for me is a bit like going to the airport you're gonna have to take a 30min trip(without traffic) and 60min trip(with traffic) or a 30min metro (crowded) or a 45min (but less punctual and gets full too often) bus/suburban train to reach the station.
As I type this, the city keeps expanding on one side, so in a decade's time, there will be a new city center, closer to the airport, but further and further away from the hub station. I'll have to wait and see if they change the hub station to a more central one at that point.
ethbr1
Transit is one place where I'll say authoritarianism and central planning are superior.
1. Identify direction of expansion
2. Buy / eminent domain land
3. Build transit
4. Develop area
immibis
Well that explains why Kassel Hauptbahnhof is a terminus station, while the bigger and busier central station is Kassel-Wilhelmshöhe.
logifail
If anyone's interested, there's a massive project in Munich to expand capacity, improve performance, and reduce journey times on the suburban lines that run through the centre:
https://www.2.stammstrecke-muenchen.de/home.html
> To upgrade the S-Bahn system and to reduce the traffic burden on the existing core line, two new tracks will be built parallel to it between the stations of Laim in the west of the city and Leuchtenbergring in the east, covering a total of about 10 kilometres. The core of the new east-west connection is a 7-kilometre tunnel linking Munich's main station Hauptbahnhof with the eastern hub Ostbahnhof.
ta12653421
jahahaha, you should have also mentioned that zwei Stammstrecke will make it horrible long to switch from platform 1 to platform 2, through elevators 40m up + down on each side, forcing you to go completely upwards, and then going down again. Apart from fire security, most people will just hate it :-)
(Source: Projektplan / SZ.de)
logifail
I'd not really considered connections or which trains which run in which track/tunnel once it's finished(!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_line_2_(Munich_S-Bahn)#/...
#/media/File:Netzplan_S-Bahn_M%C3%BCnchen_Zweite_Stammstrecke.svg){kind=link}
> zwei Stammstrecke will make it horrible long to switch from platform 1 to platform 2, through elevators 40m up + down on each side, forcing you to go completely upwards, and then going down again
Are the connections between the faster and the slower lines going to be equally bad at all five connection points (Laim, Hbf, Marienhof or -platz, Ostbahnhof and Leuchtenbergring)?
DiscourseFan
That 1943 map of proposed through-running routes for London...
Anyone who lives on the outskirts of London near a big commuter station knows that pain: 15 minutes to get into the centre, and another 25 to get anywhere else.
xnorswap
I'm surprised by the lack of mention in this article of the on-hold "Crossrail 2" project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail_2
RLN
One problem I've encountered in Munich is they essentially have a single trunk that runs through the centre. In the case of problems on one line you can often find multiple other lines are also affected. London always seems to have a redundancy in the case of a line being unusable.
I suppose this is more a problem of sharing track than through running, but I just found it funny to see Munich public transport described so positively.
weiliddat
> I just found it funny to see Munich public transport described so positively
Been living in Munich for the past 9 years, with the exception of the S-Bahn, it's still very good. I've never felt the need to own a car (only the occasional rental for moving or trips to more remote areas). Anecdotally, I know colleagues and friends who also make do without one, even those with kids.
Only city I've experienced better is Singapore (where I lived for ~7 years), though people complain all the same :D
bayindirh
I once read an anecdote:
In an airport, people complained that luggage delivery was so slow after landings. Airport measured the time, agreed with passengers and increased workforce to reduce waiting times substantially, but the complaints didn't reduce.
Instead, they routed passengers through a longer path, so their luggage was waiting for them when they arrived, and nobody complained about the longer walk.
We, the humans, are interesting.
devilbunny
> nobody complained about the longer walk
I've never formally complained about luggage arrival delays, but I have definitely noticed long walks. Some ridiculously so. I suppose I should complain, but to whom?
SideburnsOfDoom
> London always seems to have a redundancy in the case of a line being unusable.
The London underground is indeed a redundant spiderweb. But the article focuses more on mainline trains, which are much more constrained.
The only way right through central London for these trains was north-to-south, the Snow Hill tunnel: Kings Cross -> Farringdon -> City Thameslink -> Blackfriars -> South of the river. This can only be a bottleneck.
But now there is the Elizabeth line east-to-west as well.
Havoc
There is also an element of critical mass - a city needs to get to a stage where it is a reasonable decision to not have a car.
resource_waste
People have no idea how much cars benefited the lower and created the middle class.
Instead of having an hour commute to move a few miles, you could have a half hour commute to move 30 miles.
This made land ownership possible for this group of people. Low value land that was too far from work was now usable for those same jobs.
Whenever I see propositions of removing lanes from freeways, I think how that benefits only rich people and landlords. I can afford to live near my company because I'm well-off, but I know plenty of people making 40-60k/yr that have plots of land 30-60 minutes from their jobs. They would otherwise be renting apartments 1/3 of the size of their home.
jobs_throwaway
> you could have a half hour commute to move 30 miles
only by ignoring the externalities of traffic and highways. If everyone tries to do this, it doesn't work. Hence the need for public transit
coldtea
>This made land ownership possible for this group of people. Low value land that was too far from work was now usable for those same jobs.
The same is the case with public transport where available and where the city is built to support it. Which is what the poor people and rising middle class used -- especially as they didn't afford a car until the 1930s (and in places like New York not even then, though they still managed to turn from piss poor Italian, Jewish, Greek, Bulgarian, Irish, etc immigrants to middle class).
lm28469
It benefited business owners more than anything... wasting hours of your life in a fucking cage you probably pay a loan and interests on because without it you wouldn't even be honoured to slave your life away isn't anywhere close to "benefiting the lower class". Car is freedom, war is peace... people can't even tell how brainwashed they are by the car industry.
prmoustache
There is no need for a car to do that.
I've lived 40km from my office, commuting by bicycle (there was an highway and a railway available as well). I was super fit at the time. I've lived 100km from my office, taking a mix of train + bicycle. Despite being a wee bit slower than using a car, I could do something ( or sleep/nap) in the train, so that was better time spent.
Anyway you look at it, even when it is faster, using a car in an area that has decent public transport is a time that is not well spent over different modes of transportation and you don't really gain time if you think of it thorously.
nkrisc
You biked 50km after 8+ hours of physical labor?
squircle
> Instead of having an hour commute to move a few miles, you could have a half hour commute to move 30 miles.
Traveling faster than what the human body is capable of on its own feels like time travel to me. Horse, buggy, car, whatever... like stepping into or activating a warp bubble where your consciousness arrives at a place faster than humanly possible. Similarly, having access to information or experience (different manners of vehicles) is potentially a huge advantage or major pitfall. (Perhaps why some ancient maps indicate, "here be dragons!")
Inversely, moving slow when others are traveling fast allows you to witness where those paths lead without having to go down proverbial rabbit holes.
inglor_cz
"you could have a half hour commute to move 30 miles."
Well unless half a million people try to commute along you during the same rush hour, with their commute ending in the wider centre of an old city which cannot absorb all the cars.
In Prague it is quite common to spend half an hour to cross the outer 25 miles of your journey and spend another half an hour in the traffic jam of the last 5 miles.
If it wasn't for the suburban trains and buses which alleviate the pressure, that last 5 miles would be one huge gridlock moving at the speed of a slow walk.
piva00
I don't see how having a decent public transportation network is any different.
I live in a suburb of Stockholm, 15km away from the city centre but it takes me only some 35 min to get to the central station on the metro, I have the option to take a 10 min bus to the nearest rail station that connects me to a different part of the city so if I need to go there I can choose the commuter train. Not only that but I do get local trains taking me to different towns southwards, also a direct connection to the airport and other towns northwards, and a connection to the long distance rail that can take me to the other coast, or south to Malmö/Copenhagen.
My suburb only exists because the metro station was built here, around the station there's a small centre with shops for daily needs, all of that was designed prior the existence of residential buildings to support the city's expansion, around the station are the higher-density buildings with apartments while I live some 5-10 min away in a townhouse; and this suburb is considered a poorer area of the Stockholm metropolitan region, not requiring a car was a must.
SideburnsOfDoom
> People have no idea how much cars benefited the lower and created the middle class.
Yes, and with reference to London, one of the cities discussed, cars are now literally poisoning us.
> The most economically disadvantaged are often those worst affected by air pollution, particularly because they often live in less desirable locations, such as near busy roads. But they are conversely least likely to own a car or use them as much and therefore emit the least pollution.
https://trustforlondon.org.uk/news/london-inequalities-infec...
https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/bame-and-po...
If cars are so great all around, ever think why "near busy roads" are "less desirable locations" ?
davexunit
Here's to hoping that Andy Byford can make through running happen at NY Penn.
dukoid
Why not think bigger? https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1hwChHpCfdV23GhvcZCun...
jgalt212
As of right now, it would just be pork. The traffic patterns it would enable are very low volume.
In the long term, it's anyone's guess. My fear is it would be another Airtrain.
null
inglor_cz
This is being discussed in Prague, but it is going to be very expensive.
The city is very much not-flat, with significant altitude differences, a lot of already existing infrastructure under the surface (three extant lines of metro with fourth one being built, some road tunnels, parking spaces etc.), and a major river must be crossed. Plus, the rocks underneath are fractured and finicky. It isn't a nice big slab of granite, but a mixture of sediments, water and various primordial rocks. Quite hellish to put tunnels into.
I was a Londoner for 20 years and Thameslink (north to south through running discussed in the article) always felt special but I'd never looked into its history. To be able to get on a 'proper train' in Brixton and then run right through to Kentish Town or Luton was kindof amazing. And it was very fast, I'd try and incorporate it into journeys where possible. Like, if you were going somewhere and realised you could do it via Thameslink it felt like a bonus.
Crossrail (aka Elizabeth line) was being talked about or built the whole two decades I lived there but opened after I left.