如果當年由地鐵公司投得西鐵的營運權?

原帖由 lok1032 於 2006-8-3 14:12 發表
會唔會?

1. 建造費較低? (荃灣西起與TCL共同路軌)
2. 較多人搭? (香港站直開到屯門, 不用左轉右轉, 96X批線客量一定無現在咁好, 在荔景可以轉荃灣線, 不用在美孚行大運)
3. 票價較低 (大西北直駁地鐵網絡一個 ...

如果西鐵由地鐵投得

1. 班次較疏，相信與東涌線一樣只有 10 分鐘一班（荔景至香港一段實施聯合班次）
2. 用車較差，大概會用落雨會水浸的東涌線列車
3. 接駁輕鐵要額外付費
4. 未接駁輕鐵車費的車費，應該較低，但相信不會比東涌站低（因行車里數大致相同）
5. 西鐵只到天水圍，屯門無份
6. 月台顯示屏長期失靈

另外，美孚步行轉車時間約為 5 分鐘
假設候車時間不變
若果西鐵改為於荔景站轉車
實際只為乘客節省 3 分鐘
但步行往對面月台轉車感覺上方便得多

[ 本帖最後由 ahbong 於 2006-8-3 20:55 編輯 ]

奇想：我覺得條西鐵好可能會變成地鐵荃灣線的延伸，冇荃灣西站美孚站南昌站。
即係由屯門站做起點，跟住就係兆康站天水圍站朗屏站元朗站錦上路站。然後，
經大欖隧道直接駁落現時荃灣線的盡頭。而南環線亦都唔會存在。

肯定比現在九廣西鐵多人搭, 始終地鐵的市區網絡強大好多!

原帖由 ahbong 於 2006-8-3 20:48 發表

如果西鐵由地鐵投得

1. 班次較疏，相信與東涌線一樣只有 10 分鐘一班（荔景至香港一段實施聯合班次）
2. 用車較差，大概會用落雨會水浸的東涌線列車
3. 接駁輕鐵要額外付費
4. 未接駁輕鐵車費的車費，應該較低，但相信不會比東涌站低（因行車里數大致相同）
5. 西鐵只到天水圍，屯門無份
6. 月台顯示屏長期失靈

1、2、5、6根本不成立，甚至完全相反。

如果西鐵由地鐵投得，不要忘記是實行另一個方案。

1. 班次疏密，將按新界西北人口作依據，一切要視乎實際定線而定，現在說班次較疏未免言之過早。（荃景圍站將考慮加設，並提供荃灣線轉乘）
2. 用車只是因應當時投標還擇，根本無人得知會否用回CAF列車。（將軍澳線原來是用CAF設計圖，可是現在呢？）
5. 西鐵只到天水圍，只是政府注資問題，根本與兩鐵無關，只是政府參考地鐵上蓋物業方案，才允許西鐵延至屯門（因此西鐵到屯門要多謝地鐵及居民所賜，否則學九鐵一樣，以輕鐵暫時代替有關路段，減低造價而只到天水圍）。
6. 地鐵月台顯示屏長期失靈，根本無人可知，而且失靈次數是否太高只是個人意見。（我又不覺得長期失靈）

[ 本帖最後由 dennis28a 於 2006-8-3 22:01 編輯 ]

原帖由 hksubways 於 2006-8-3 22:06 發表


Regardless of whichever type of cars MTR uses, the cars will be much inferior to the JAPANESE MADE SP1900... coz MTR has $ as its top agenda, not passenger's interests.

I am sure that MTR WR freq will be worse than KCR's coz KCR's freq are prob considered not profit yielding

If MTR gets to build, have to endure crappy PIDS that only shows one train (or in the case of TCL, even worse, no arrivals information displayed until at specified times)

And remember, no TV, no cutting edge ticket gates, crappy claustrophobic trains and smaller stations disproportionate to the scale of the new towns (think in the long term please)

AND DONT FORGET, only KCR specs can accomodate intercity trains from Guangdong

P.S. I think this is a really childish thread with a totally impossible hypothetical scenario that's going nowhere

If WR (operated by KCRC) fares are so expensive like now, passengers would not prefer travelling on WR but if MTRC operates it, the fare is probably lower and the demand would probably increase, so MTRC has to adjust the frequency to suit the needs.

PIDS: What's the use of displaying the time that the train after next arrives? Not many people will wait for 2 trains.

TV: Are TVs on WR totally good? Personally I think that they are very noisy but not informative.

Stations: But the stations are definitely too large now. Empty space here, there, everywhere! The operator needs to pay for the air-conditioning, lighting, repairing etc. Do they need to be so large?

PS: The topic may seem childish, but it can be used to see the differences between the business strategies of the two corporations and compare them.

原帖由 dennis28a 於 2006-8-3 21:59 發表


1. 班次疏密，將按新界西北人口作依據，一切要視乎實際定線而定，現在說班次較疏未免言之過早。（荃景圍站將考慮加設，並提供荃灣線轉乘）
2. 用車只是因應當時投標還擇，根本無人得知會否用回CAF列車。（將軍澳線原來是用CAF設計圖，可是現在呢？）
5. 西鐵只到天水圍，只是政府注資問題，根本與兩鐵無關，只是政府參考地鐵上蓋物業方案，才允許西鐵延至屯門（因此西鐵到屯門要多謝地鐵及居民所賜，否則學九鐵一樣，以輕鐵暫時代替有關路段，減低造價而只到天水圍）。
6. 地鐵月台顯示屏長期失靈，根本無人可知，而且失靈次數是否太高只是個人意見。（我又不覺得長期失靈）

這當然是水晶球問題
我的 1,2,6 各點只係總結地鐵經營各線的手法而得來

1. 班次：若果西鐵只服務天水圍、元朗，並與東涌線共用路軌，我不相信地鐵經營下的西鐵會比現時西鐵更頻密
6. 綜合地鐵五條線的月台顯示屏，我沒理由相信地鐵可以做出比現時西鐵更優秀的月台顯示屏
2. 同上理由，我亦不相信地鐵用車會比九鐵優勝。
5. 無意見。

我認為地鐵經營西鐵的唯一好處
只係地鐵網絡較大、轉車較方便而已
其他服務質素
我都不存厚望

原帖由 kp3011 於 2006-8-3 22:34 發表


PIDS: What's the use of displaying the time that the train after next arrives? Not many people will wait for 2 trains.

Probably that's why MTR NEVER upgrade their existing crappy PIDS.

Passengers already on the platform need to wait anyway, there's actually no need to display even the next train's arrival time. But that's what differentiate a good PIDS and a crappy PIDS.

Not to mention that most of the MTR PIDS don't really display the next train's arrival time until the train arrives at the platform.

[ 本帖最後由 ahbong 於 2006-8-3 22:46 編輯 ]

原帖由 hksubways 於 2006-8-3 22:06 發表


Regardless of whichever type of cars MTR uses, the cars will be much inferior to the JAPANESE MADE SP1900... coz MTR has $ as its top agenda, not passenger's interests.

I am sure that MTR WR freq will be worse than KCR's coz KCR's freq are prob considered not profit yielding

If MTR gets to build, have to endure crappy PIDS that only shows one train (or in the case of TCL, even worse, no arrivals information displayed until at specified times)

And remember, no TV, no cutting edge ticket gates, crappy claustrophobic trains and smaller stations disproportionate to the scale of the new towns (think in the long term please)

AND DONT FORGET, only KCR specs can accomodate intercity trains from Guangdong

Please be reminded that CAF and AD Tranz combo simply sucks, not because of AD Tranz train technologies(nowhere sucks at that era, of course it still lack something behind from the EMU kingdom), but the overall worse craftmanship of CAF, and the underestimate of tunnel air dynamics for high speed trains.

Also, using full DC on WR could render more lost in electricity at off-peak time, should be built distance remains the same.
While AC have lesser lose in power transmittion in the same case.

P.S. I think this is a really childish thread with a totally impossible hypothetical scenario that's going nowhere

Had to agree with this, however that's exactly why I love to read such sense-less material recently which in terms they can be counter used as some excerise for some of our bored masterminds in railway to see the interworking of finanical world from railway point of view.

[ 本帖最後由 500 於 2006-8-3 22:44 編輯 ]