In article , (Phil) wrote:

" writes:

On 27/07/2013 02:23, CJB wrote:
On Thursday, 25 July 2013 11:02:41 UTC+1,
wrote:
Why is it that you can have everyone on an escalator standing on the
right yet there's always one muppet tourist standing on the left who
doesn't seem to clock that fact? Where do these people leave their
brains when they visit London?

Not just London, there are stand on the right signs on the escalators at
Birmingham New Street station, and yes they get ignored too.

Not to mention the Glasgow Subway.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

If only a couple of people are walking up the left-hand side then the escalator can only be working at 50% capacity. At busy times escalators would be more efficient if standing on both sides were compulsory. The tourists are right.

In message , at
06:59:25 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013, Offramp remarked:
If only a couple of people are walking up the left-hand side then the escalator can only be working at 50% capacity.

Only if there's a queue to board.

At busy times escalators would be more efficient if standing on both sides were compulsory.

No, walking up both sides would be the most efficient. But the
compromise is that people stand on one side, and walk up the other side.

The tourists are right.

No, they are always wrong.
--
Roland Perry

Offramp writes:

If only a couple of people are walking up the left-hand side then the
escalator can only be working at 50% capacity. At busy times
escalators would be more efficient if standing on both sides were
compulsory. The tourists are right.

They would be even more efficient if everybody walked up them.

Phil wrote:
Offramp writes:

If only a couple of people are walking up the left-hand side then the
escalator can only be working at 50% capacity. At busy times
escalators would be more efficient if standing on both sides were
compulsory. The tourists are right.

They would be even more efficient if everybody walked up them.

I don't know for sure, but wonder whether people walking up the escalator
tend to stay further apart than those who stand still? If so, walking may
actually reduce the capacity.

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
No, walking up both sides would be the most efficient.

Efficent? What are you optimising for? Throughput, or minimum journey
time?

ISTR that standing gives better throughput because people tend to
be happy leaving a small gap to the person in front when they stand,
but I can't find the any trace of the research I half-remember on the
web.

No, they are always wrong.

Not always.


--
Mike Bristow

On 2013-09-15, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
06:59:25 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013, Offramp remarked:
If only a couple of people are walking up the left-hand side then the
If escalator can only be working at 50% capacity.

Only if there's a queue to board.

Capacity has nothing to do with any queue there may or may not be.

At busy times escalators would be more efficient if standing on both sides
At were compulsory.

No, walking up both sides would be the most efficient. But the compromise
is that people stand on one side, and walk up the other side.

Only if everyone was the same distance apart as if they were just standing
(unlikely) and everyone was moving at the same speed relative to the steps
(also unlikely). The "compromise" is a system that reduces throughput in
order to give the energetic able-bodied the ability to get through a bit
faster.

The tourists are right.

No, they are always wrong.

You are being arrogant and xenophobic.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

I don't know for sure, but wonder whether people walking up the escalator
tend to stay further apart than those who stand still? If so, walking may
actually reduce the capacity.

It may reduce the number on the escalator at any specific moment, but
it's unlikely to reduce the number tranported from the bottom to the
top per unit of time, since people who walk spend less time on the
esclator than people who don't.





--
Regards,
John Levine, , Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

On 2013-09-15, John Levine wrote:
I don't know for sure, but wonder whether people walking up the escalator
tend to stay further apart than those who stand still? If so, walking may
actually reduce the capacity.

It may reduce the number on the escalator at any specific moment, but
it's unlikely to reduce the number tranported from the bottom to the
top per unit of time, since people who walk spend less time on the
esclator than people who don't.

What you need to measure is how many get off per unit time and nothing
else. How much time each spends on the escalator is not relevant to that.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 17:22:40 +0100, Eric wrote:
On 2013-09-15, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
06:59:25 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013, Offramp remarked:
At busy times escalators would be more efficient if standing on both
sides were compulsory.

No, walking up both sides would be the most efficient. But the
compromise
is that people stand on one side, and walk up the other side.

Only if everyone was the same distance apart as if they were just
standing (unlikely)

They could be somewhat further apart, and further still on longer
escalators, and still get more people through per unit time than if they
all stand still.

and everyone was moving at the same speed relative to the steps (also
unlikely)

Actually, this is guaranteed at busy times, since there's no overtaking.

I would be surprised if LT hadn't done research on this, as they did to
determine the optimum moving speed.

The "compromise" is a system that reduces throughput in
order to give the energetic able-bodied the ability to
get through a bit faster.

Allowing standing one side allows slower walkers to choose to stand,
therefore increasing the average walking speed compared to expecting
people to walk on both sides.

Colin McKenzie

--
Cycling in the UK is about as safe as walking, and helmets don't make it
safer. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.