Maybe a huge snowstorm happens blocking the train overnight, then someone is murdered on board, and a detective has to figure out who the perpetrator is before the next station?
>Maybe a huge snowstorm happens blocking the train overnight, then someone is murdered on board, and a detective has to figure out who the perpetrator is before the next station?
That sounds like a great idea for a mystery novel. Perhaps one that includes the world's greatest detective. It might even get adapted several times for movies, both on the big screen and made for TV.
The optimal amount of train delay is non-zero. You need high redundancy to avoid many causes - and their knock on effects - and redundancy is antithetical to efficiency.
You're missing an axiom there - that efficiency is a superior goal to punctuality, or to something else entirely. Considering the amount of rolling stock just sitting around unused in sidings at depots, one can presume that many railway operators don't rank efficient allocation of resources quite as highly as you do!
And trains have to reliably get people to their destination on time.
Regardless, my point is that the optimal amount of delay for profit and passenger satisfaction is not the same.
Ever since I’ve seen Japan’s trains drive perfectly as long as it’s not raining, on segments as short as 2 minutes apart, its become abundantly clear to me that delay is not an inherent property of any rail system.
Yes, you're not a legitimate passenger if you haven't paid the fare.
It's immaterial though. They could instead face increased cost in taxes, decreased investment elsewhere, or good-old eminent domain for infrastructure expansion. The downstream effects of an infinite number of backup lines to guarantee service following an infinite number of track trespassers are not good for passenger satisfaction.
