On 2015\11\29 13:40, Recliner wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 13:37:01 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\11\29 13:17, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:59:54 on
Sun, 29 Nov 2015, Recliner remarked:

Already done:
http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/assets/sn...f/2002-11-01Go
utamDutta.pdf

"For a double escalator with a rise greater than about 18.5 metres,
capacity would be greater if people could be encouraged to stand on both
sides."

From page 28:

Conclusion
It is therefore concluded that:

• Passengers will not stand on both sides of an escalator simply
because they are asked to.

• When passengers do stand on both sides capacity is high but this is
only because the majority of passengers do not treat the left hand
side as a standing side.

• However, except for short periods of time, passengers will not stand
on both sides unless they are persuaded (such as through an
advertising campaign) to treat both sides as standing sides.

• If passengers could be persuaded to treat both sides as standing
sides, capacity would not be so high and, if the assumptions made are
correct, it would only be advantageous for high rise double escalators
and for corner A double escalators.

• To impose such a selective policy would be even more difficult than
persuading passengers to stand on all escalators and the benefit
gained would be minimal.



So if I get on an escalator and walk forward then I'm preventing the
people behind me from getting on, but if I stop dead immediately I'm
helping the progress of the people behind me. That seems incredible.

How do you reach that conclusion???

That's what people are implying when they say that the capacity of an
escalator is reduced by walking.