Sure. If push pulls were so great why is DB phasing them all out in favour of emus?
If you look around, you will notice we are not Germany. We have our own pre-existing rail network and rail fleet that we need to reckon with. I do not speak German and therefore can't do a deep dive on the DB rolling stock roster, but I am willing to predict that the push pulls they are phasing out are life expired, unreliable, or otherwise problematic, to justify the investment in their replacement.
The Series I BiLevels were just refurbished a few years back, and the majority of the BiLevel fleet was built less than 20 years ago. If you would like to pony up the cash to see these replaced with EMUs, feel free to open your chequebook and make a personal donation to Metrolinx, but as a taxpayer, I want nothing to do with this scheme. Innovation is all well and good, but there's a place for it, and that place is not when you have reliable, dependable equipment in good working order that you can get many decades of use out of still.
the bilevel cars work for commuter style travel. if we are to aspire to be an rer with more reliable frequency esp like LSE/W, we cant be dwelling on the past just because its convenient.
thats called complacency.
That's all very nice populist rhetoric, but you still haven't provided any hard facts or figures. You said: "once you add more station density as required, the behemoth bilevel trains will be too slow to maintain frequency." Where is your evidence for this? I know we have a low image of Metrolinx around here, but surely even they realize that it is necessary to spec vehicles that they purchase so that they can meet the requirements of the service plan, whatever speeds and acceleration rates it may demand.
Until you produce some technical sheets or reports outlining the acceleration and top speed rates of the different types of equipment you are comparing, you are merely arguing your opinion as though it is a fact, and I don't think that's helpful to anyone's understanding of the issues at play.