| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
I'm surprised nobody else has noted here what I saw last week in (I
think) the Evening Standard: that TfL are about to tell passengers at Holborn not to walk up the escalators. They claim that the passenger-carrying capacity is greater when people stand on both left and right. There was no mention of a penalty for those trying to walk up the left hand side, but as we all know, it only takes one person to block that side by standing on it for the whole system to degrade to standing on both sides. I really doubt the capacity arguments: it may be true that you get more people on the standing side than on the walking side as walking needs a bit more inter-person space, but on the other hand the number of people per second is greater. I wonder if they have really done any measurements? A much more productive move, in my opinion, would be to run their escalators a bit faster: those in Moscow, Kiev, and other former soviet cities, go about 50% faster in my experience. It comes as a slight surprise to the visitor, but people seem to cope. -- Clive Page |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:13:26 +0000, Clive Page
wrote: I'm surprised nobody else has noted here what I saw last week in (I think) the Evening Standard: that TfL are about to tell passengers at Holborn not to walk up the escalators. They claim that the passenger-carrying capacity is greater when people stand on both left and right. There was no mention of a penalty for those trying to walk up the left hand side, but as we all know, it only takes one person to block that side by standing on it for the whole system to degrade to standing on both sides. I really doubt the capacity arguments: it may be true that you get more people on the standing side than on the walking side as walking needs a bit more inter-person space, but on the other hand the number of people per second is greater. I wonder if they have really done any measurements? A much more productive move, in my opinion, would be to run their escalators a bit faster: those in Moscow, Kiev, and other former soviet cities, go about 50% faster in my experience. It comes as a slight surprise to the visitor, but people seem to cope. Or tell people not to stand on the escalators and keep walking :-) |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
In message , at 10:13:26 on Sun, 29
Nov 2015, Clive Page remarked: I'm surprised nobody else has noted here what I saw last week in (I think) the Evening Standard: that TfL are about to tell passengers at Holborn not to walk up the escalators. They claim that the passenger-carrying capacity is greater when people stand on both left and right. There was no mention of a penalty for those trying to walk up the left hand side, but as we all know, it only takes one person to block that side by standing on it for the whole system to degrade to standing on both sides. I really doubt the capacity arguments: it may be true that you get more people on the standing side than on the walking side as walking needs a bit more inter-person space, but on the other hand the number of people per second is greater. I wonder if they have really done any measurements? It would be trivial to measu just stand at the top of one of the escalators that has for the duration of the experiment people standing on one side and walking up the other, and count how many people step off the top on each side in a fixed period of time. A minute would be plenty long enough. -- Roland Perry |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On Sunday, 29 November 2015 10:13:27 UTC, Clive Page wrote:
I'm surprised nobody else has noted here what I saw last week in (I think) the Evening Standard: that TfL are about to tell passengers at Holborn not to walk up the escalators. They claim that the passenger-carrying capacity is greater when people stand on both left and right. There was no mention of a penalty for those trying to walk up the left hand side, but as we all know, it only takes one person to block that side by standing on it for the whole system to degrade to standing on both sides. I really doubt the capacity arguments: it may be true that you get more people on the standing side than on the walking side as walking needs a bit more inter-person space, but on the other hand the number of people per second is greater. I wonder if they have really done any measurements? A much more productive move, in my opinion, would be to run their escalators a bit faster: those in Moscow, Kiev, and other former soviet cities, go about 50% faster in my experience. It comes as a slight surprise to the visitor, but people seem to cope. I said this years ago! Stand-on-both-sides escalators carry MUCH more! |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On Sunday, 29 November 2015 10:27:42 UTC, Scott wrote:
Or tell people not to stand on the escalators and keep walking :-) Walking is bad for escalators. It damages them. |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
|
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On 2015-11-29, Clive Page wrote:
I'm surprised nobody else has noted here what I saw last week in (I think) the Evening Standard: that TfL are about to tell passengers at Holborn not to walk up the escalators. They have done this on an ad-hoc basis in the past, I can remember it being done at Victoria when it was very crowded. They claim that the passenger-carrying capacity is greater when people stand on both left and right. There was no mention of a penalty for those trying to walk up the left hand side, but as we all know, it only takes one person to block that side by standing on it for the whole system to degrade to standing on both sides. Degrade? Not proven. I really doubt the capacity arguments: it may be true that you get more people on the standing side than on the walking side as walking needs a bit more inter-person space, but on the other hand the number of people per second is greater. I wonder if they have really done any measurements? I would imagine they have, and they need to to be able to overcome the inevitable objections to "stand on both sides". I wouldn't object, I believe the capacity argument, and I always have. When I first came to London 26 years ago, I was appalled at the convention of standing on one side only. Think about it. Every time a step arrives at the end of the escalator, 0 or 1 or 2 people get off. For maximum capacity, it needs to be 2. On the right-hand side currently, there can (with minor exceptions) be one person per step. On the left-hand side, because, as you say, walking needs a bit more inter-person space, there will never be one person for every step, so full capacity is never being used. There is another issue, which I think is equally important. Since people are supposed to stand only on the right, all those who can't or won't walk (especially up) end up queuing for the right hand side, and the queue causes congestion. If they could queue for both sides, the queue could also be two wide and therefore much shorter. A much more productive move, in my opinion, would be to run their escalators a bit faster: those in Moscow, Kiev, and other former soviet cities, go about 50% faster in my experience. It comes as a slight surprise to the visitor, but people seem to cope. True. Eric -- ms fnd in a lbry |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On 2015-11-29, Scott wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:13:26 +0000, Clive Page wrote: I'm surprised nobody else has noted here what I saw last week in (I think) the Evening Standard: that TfL are about to tell passengers at Holborn not to walk up the escalators. They claim that the passenger-carrying capacity is greater when people stand on both left and right. There was no mention of a penalty for those trying to walk up the left hand side, but as we all know, it only takes one person to block that side by standing on it for the whole system to degrade to standing on both sides. I really doubt the capacity arguments: it may be true that you get more people on the standing side than on the walking side as walking needs a bit more inter-person space, but on the other hand the number of people per second is greater. I wonder if they have really done any measurements? A much more productive move, in my opinion, would be to run their escalators a bit faster: those in Moscow, Kiev, and other former soviet cities, go about 50% faster in my experience. It comes as a slight surprise to the visitor, but people seem to cope. Or tell people not to stand on the escalators and keep walking :-) Actually not funny, considering the number of reasons people are unable to keep walking, especially up! Eric -- ms fnd in a lbry |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 11:54:31 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 11:23:17 on Sun, 29 Nov 2015, remarked: I really doubt the capacity arguments: it may be true that you get more people on the standing side than on the walking side as walking needs a bit more inter-person space, but on the other hand the number of people per second is greater. I wonder if they have really done any measurements? It would be trivial to measu just stand at the top of one of the escalators that has for the duration of the experiment people standing on one side and walking up the other, and count how many people step off the top on each side in a fixed period of time. A minute would be plenty long enough. Could the result vary with the demographic of the users and the time and location. Of course. I'm going to suggest that the time and location we concentrate on is "Holborn in the rush hours". Already done: http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/assets/snippets/workingpaperpdf/2002-11-01GoutamDutta.pdf 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. |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On Sunday, 29 November 2015 12:59:55 UTC, Recliner wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 11:54:31 +0000, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:23:17 on Sun, 29 Nov 2015, remarked: I really doubt the capacity arguments: it may be true that you get more people on the standing side than on the walking side as walking needs a bit more inter-person space, but on the other hand the number of people per second is greater. I wonder if they have really done any measurements? It would be trivial to measu just stand at the top of one of the escalators that has for the duration of the experiment people standing on one side and walking up the other, and count how many people step off the top on each side in a fixed period of time. A minute would be plenty long enough. Could the result vary with the demographic of the users and the time and location. Of course. I'm going to suggest that the time and location we concentrate on is "Holborn in the rush hours". Already done: http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/assets/snippets/workingpaperpdf/2002-11-01GoutamDutta.pdf 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. On all they need is a member of staff, preferably a unidexter, to ride up and down clogging the walking side. |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On 2015\11\29 10:27, Scott wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:13:26 +0000, Clive Page wrote: I'm surprised nobody else has noted here what I saw last week in (I think) the Evening Standard: that TfL are about to tell passengers at Holborn not to walk up the escalators. They claim that the passenger-carrying capacity is greater when people stand on both left and right. There was no mention of a penalty for those trying to walk up the left hand side, but as we all know, it only takes one person to block that side by standing on it for the whole system to degrade to standing on both sides. I really doubt the capacity arguments: it may be true that you get more people on the standing side than on the walking side as walking needs a bit more inter-person space, but on the other hand the number of people per second is greater. I wonder if they have really done any measurements? A much more productive move, in my opinion, would be to run their escalators a bit faster: those in Moscow, Kiev, and other former soviet cities, go about 50% faster in my experience. It comes as a slight surprise to the visitor, but people seem to cope. Or tell people not to stand on the escalators and keep walking :-) If would help if they stopped telling us we must carry a dog. |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
In message , at 12:59:54 on
Sun, 29 Nov 2015, Recliner remarked: On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 11:54:31 +0000, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:23:17 on Sun, 29 Nov 2015, remarked: I really doubt the capacity arguments: it may be true that you get more people on the standing side than on the walking side as walking needs a bit more inter-person space, but on the other hand the number of people per second is greater. I wonder if they have really done any measurements? It would be trivial to measu just stand at the top of one of the escalators that has for the duration of the experiment people standing on one side and walking up the other, and count how many people step off the top on each side in a fixed period of time. A minute would be plenty long enough. Could the result vary with the demographic of the users and the time and location. Of course. I'm going to suggest that the time and location we concentrate on is "Holborn in the rush hours". 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. -- Roland Perry |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
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. |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
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??? |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
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. |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 13:00:51 +0100, Eric wrote:
On 2015-11-29, Clive Page wrote: I'm surprised nobody else has noted here what I saw last week in (I think) the Evening Standard: that TfL are about to tell passengers at Holborn not to walk up the escalators. They have done this on an ad-hoc basis in the past, I can remember it being done at Victoria when it was very crowded. They claim that the passenger-carrying capacity is greater when people stand on both left and right. There was no mention of a penalty for those trying to walk up the left hand side, but as we all know, it only takes one person to block that side by standing on it for the whole system to degrade to standing on both sides. Degrade? Not proven. I really doubt the capacity arguments: it may be true that you get more people on the standing side than on the walking side as walking needs a bit more inter-person space, but on the other hand the number of people per second is greater. I wonder if they have really done any measurements? I would imagine they have, and they need to to be able to overcome the inevitable objections to "stand on both sides". I wouldn't object, I believe the capacity argument, and I always have. When I first came to London 26 years ago, I was appalled at the convention of standing on one side only. Think about it. Every time a step arrives at the end of the escalator, 0 or 1 or 2 people get off. For maximum capacity, it needs to be 2. On the right-hand side currently, there can (with minor exceptions) be one person per step. On the left-hand side, because, as you say, walking needs a bit more inter-person space, there will never be one person for every step, so full capacity is never being used. But if people walk will they not spend less time on the escalator, leaving more capacity for others? A 70mph road must be able to carry more traffic each hour than a 30mph road. There is another issue, which I think is equally important. Since people are supposed to stand only on the right, all those who can't or won't walk (especially up) end up queuing for the right hand side, and the queue causes congestion. If they could queue for both sides, the queue could also be two wide and therefore much shorter. I can see your logic at peak periods but if passengers are permitted to stand on both sides you could end up with those wanting to save a bit of time (or build up their exercise steps) by walking during quiet times unable to do so, as happens often in shops. A much more productive move, in my opinion, would be to run their escalators a bit faster: those in Moscow, Kiev, and other former soviet cities, go about 50% faster in my experience. It comes as a slight surprise to the visitor, but people seem to cope. True. Eric |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
In message , at 13:54:09 on Sun, 29 Nov
2015, Basil Jet remarked: 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. You are increasing the capacity of the escalator, but perhaps delaying individual people who may have walked. As long as you ignore the effect on the queues at the bottom of the escalator when doing those sums. -- Roland Perry |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
In message , at 13:57:04 on
Sun, 29 Nov 2015, Scott remarked: But if people walk will they not spend less time on the escalator, leaving more capacity for others? A 70mph road must be able to carry more traffic each hour than a 30mph road. No, that's what variable speed limits are all about. -- Roland Perry |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
Basil Jet wrote:
That's what people are implying when they say that the capacity of an escalator is reduced by walking. Well it all depends on (among other things) how many people walk, at what speed, and when they arrive. In any event given where we are starting from I'd put the proposition as "the capacity of the escalators is reduced by the current practice of leaving the left side empty for walkers". Whether or not that is true depends both the number of people who walk up and on the speed at which they do so. And also on the current incidence of people who block the left side - eg from ignorance; by being morbidly obese; with luggage; with large buggies; with young children. IIRC it is a problem of a class which cannot be solved analytically but can be modelled since computers have had sufficient grunt to process large volumes of data. -- Robin reply to address is (meant to be) valid |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 14:34:18 -0000, "Robin" wrote:
Basil Jet wrote: That's what people are implying when they say that the capacity of an escalator is reduced by walking. Well it all depends on (among other things) how many people walk, at what speed, and when they arrive. In any event given where we are starting from I'd put the proposition as "the capacity of the escalators is reduced by the current practice of leaving the left side empty for walkers". Whether or not that is true depends both the number of people who walk up and on the speed at which they do so. And also on the current incidence of people who block the left side - eg from ignorance; by being morbidly obese; with luggage; with large buggies; with young children. IIRC it is a problem of a class which cannot be solved analytically but can be modelled since computers have had sufficient grunt to process large volumes of data. The issue seems to be simply that walkers leave a longer gap between themselves than standers do. If people walk at different speeds, then gaps open up, even if they were equally close at the beginning, and the rest of the walkers behind the slow one also have to slow down. Also, with longer lifts, fewer people feel like walking, so the walking side gets under-used. That's why having both sides standing is most likely to leave to a net increase in capacity with long upwards escalators. |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
Scott wrote:
But if people walk will they not spend less time on the escalator, leaving more capacity for others? A 70mph road must be able to carry more traffic each hour than a 30mph road. OTOH the escalators I observe have, even during peak periods, more and bigger gaps on the left than on the right. As with roads, not everyone walks even if there is space to do so; and then not all at the same speed. And unlike roads with 70 mph speed limits, the left side of escalators doesn't leave scope for overtaking. Unless escalator leapfrog is the next leap forwards :) -- Robin reply to address is (meant to be) valid |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 13:57:04 +0000, Scott
wrote: On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 13:00:51 +0100, Eric wrote: I wouldn't object, I believe the capacity argument, and I always have. When I first came to London 26 years ago, I was appalled at the convention of standing on one side only. Think about it. Every time a step arrives at the end of the escalator, 0 or 1 or 2 people get off. For maximum capacity, it needs to be 2. On the right-hand side currently, there can (with minor exceptions) be one person per step. On the left-hand side, because, as you say, walking needs a bit more inter-person space, there will never be one person for every step, so full capacity is never being used. But if people walk will they not spend less time on the escalator, leaving more capacity for others? A 70mph road must be able to carry more traffic each hour than a 30mph road. You're assuming that the gaps between vehicles don't increase as vehicle speed increases. They do on the motorway (though perhaps not enough for safety), and they do between walkers on escalators compared to standers. |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:47:38 +0000, Roland Perry wrote: I really doubt the capacity arguments: it may be true that you get more people on the standing side than on the walking side as walking needs a bit more inter-person space, but on the other hand the number of people per second is greater. I wonder if they have really done any measurements? It would be trivial to measu just stand at the top of one of the escalators that has for the duration of the experiment people standing on one side and walking up the other, and count how many people step off the top on each side in a fixed period of time. A minute would be plenty long enough. Could the result vary with the demographic of the users and the time and location. In the rush hours or when a large sports event such as Arsenal at Home is about to take place I would think that the majority of users will be reasonably fit and in a hurry and many actaully run up at a fast pace. After the time Freedom pass use becomes available a whole load of other users who don't need to rush around start to use the system,while a lot will just stand a number will walk up to pass them but not as many actually run. Freedom passes are available for use 24 hours a day on the Tube. But retired people are less likely to use the Underground during the crowded peaks. |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On 29.11.15 11:52, Offramp wrote:
On Sunday, 29 November 2015 10:27:42 UTC, Scott wrote: Or tell people not to stand on the escalators and keep walking :-) Walking is bad for escalators. It damages them. How so? |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On 29.11.15 13:12, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\11\29 10:27, Scott wrote: On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:13:26 +0000, Clive Page wrote: I'm surprised nobody else has noted here what I saw last week in (I think) the Evening Standard: that TfL are about to tell passengers at Holborn not to walk up the escalators. They claim that the passenger-carrying capacity is greater when people stand on both left and right. There was no mention of a penalty for those trying to walk up the left hand side, but as we all know, it only takes one person to block that side by standing on it for the whole system to degrade to standing on both sides. I really doubt the capacity arguments: it may be true that you get more people on the standing side than on the walking side as walking needs a bit more inter-person space, but on the other hand the number of people per second is greater. I wonder if they have really done any measurements? A much more productive move, in my opinion, would be to run their escalators a bit faster: those in Moscow, Kiev, and other former soviet cities, go about 50% faster in my experience. It comes as a slight surprise to the visitor, but people seem to cope. Or tell people not to stand on the escalators and keep walking :-) If would help if they stopped telling us we must carry a dog. I would think that this is a pretty good idea, particularly in the case of smaller dogs. I have seen teeth at the top and bottom eat peoples' shoes. |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On 29.11.15 13:37, 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. That's the one thing that really annoys be about the use of high-volume escalators; People stop immediately before getting on because they think that they have to place their foot directly on the flat surface. |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On Sunday, 29 November 2015 17:04:36 UTC, wrote:
Walking is bad for escalators. It damages them. How so? Standing on an escalator causes no damage. But walking on an escalator can cause flumatics in the Lower Machine Chamber. |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On 2015-11-29, Scott wrote:
8 -------- But if people walk will they not spend less time on the escalator, leaving more capacity for others? Yes, they will spend less time individually, but there will still be fewer of them getting off the escalator in any given time interval, so they are not leaving capacity for others. Also by doing this they increase the total transit time for those who walk, not because of time spent on the escalator, but because of increased queuing time to get onto it. A 70mph road must be able to carry more traffic each hour than a 30mph road. No. Eric -- ms fnd in a lbry |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
"Basil Jet" wrote Or tell people not to stand on the escalators and keep walking :-) If would help if they stopped telling us we must carry a dog. "dogs must be carried" so dog or dogs. -- Mike D |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
Recliner wrote on Sun, 29 Nov 2015 at
15:10:22: wrote: Could the result vary with the demographic of the users and the time and location. In the rush hours or when a large sports event such as Arsenal at Home is about to take place I would think that the majority of users will be reasonably fit and in a hurry and many actaully run up at a fast pace. After the time Freedom pass use becomes available a whole load of other users who don't need to rush around start to use the system,while a lot will just stand a number will walk up to pass them but not as many actually run. Freedom passes are available for use 24 hours a day on the Tube. But retired people are less likely to use the Underground during the crowded peaks. True. No room for my usual 115ppm trot up the escalator. -- Iain Archer |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On 2015\11\29 17:22, Offramp wrote:
On Sunday, 29 November 2015 17:04:36 UTC, wrote: Walking is bad for escalators. It damages them. How so? Standing on an escalator causes no damage. But walking on an escalator can cause flumatics in the Lower Machine Chamber. Oh no, from there the flumatics might take over the asylum. |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
|
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 01:00:51PM +0100, Eric wrote:
I wouldn't object, I believe the capacity argument I believe it too, but I also recognise that capacity and throughput are different things, and it's throughput that matters the most. Consider a road. The M25, for example. Its capacity is highest when traffic isn't moving, because the gap between vehicles is minimised. Throughput is typically highest at a speed somewhere between 40 and 60mph. At higher speeds throughput decreases because the distance between vehicles is too high. Now, an escalator is a bit like a road which has a non-zero minimum speed. If you ignore the people in the current "standing lane", then all that matters is the speed that maximises throughput in a single lane. Is it higher than the minimum or not? Is it a viable walking speed? Can the traffic sustain that speed over an extended period? Remember, the relationship between throughput and speed is non-linear and involves lots of uncertainty and unknown parameters which make it hard to model. It may even be discontinuous. -- David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice We found no search results for "crotchet". Did you mean "crotch"? |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
In message , at 13:51:40
on Mon, 30 Nov 2015, David Cantrell remarked: On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 01:00:51PM +0100, Eric wrote: I wouldn't object, I believe the capacity argument I believe it too, but I also recognise that capacity and throughput are different things, and it's throughput that matters the most. Consider a road. The M25, for example. Its capacity is highest when traffic isn't moving, because the gap between vehicles is minimised. Throughput is typically highest at a speed somewhere between 40 and 60mph. Actually it's more like 15mph, although that's unacceptably low to set a speed limit. -- Roland Perry |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On 2015-11-30, David Cantrell wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 01:00:51PM +0100, Eric wrote: I wouldn't object, I believe the capacity argument I believe it too, but I also recognise that capacity and throughput are different things, and it's throughput that matters the most. Actually, I am talking about throughput, but someone else used "capacity" first and I didn't think to change it, because use of the words is generally sloppy enough that it doesn't matter. Capacity (in your sense) not much use for escalators, or roads. My brain has finally dredged up a memory that roads have a saturation flow rate, and that there is a mathematical model for it, which I don't remember much about (too long ago and too far away), but the same idea should be applicable to escalators. Eric -- ms fnd in a lbry |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
David Cantrell wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 01:00:51PM +0100, Eric wrote: I wouldn't object, I believe the capacity argument I believe it too, but I also recognise that capacity and throughput are different things, and it's throughput that matters the most. Consider a road. The M25, for example. Its capacity is highest when traffic isn't moving, because the gap between vehicles is minimised. Throughput is typically highest at a speed somewhere between 40 and 60mph. At higher speeds throughput decreases because the distance between vehicles is too high. Now, an escalator is a bit like a road which has a non-zero minimum speed. If you ignore the people in the current "standing lane", then all that matters is the speed that maximises throughput in a single lane. Is it higher than the minimum or not? Is it a viable walking speed? Can the traffic sustain that speed over an extended period? Remember, the relationship between throughput and speed is non-linear and involves lots of uncertainty and unknown parameters which make it hard to model. It may even be discontinuous. There's also the length (ie, rise) of the escalator to consider. If it's very high, fewer people will choose to walk up, so the walking lane will be under-used, with long gaps. In such cases, having two standing lanes will maximise throughput. But with short escalators, lots of people will prefer to walk, so it's better to have a walking lane. |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:10:06 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 13:51:40 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015, David Cantrell remarked: On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 01:00:51PM +0100, Eric wrote: I wouldn't object, I believe the capacity argument I believe it too, but I also recognise that capacity and throughput are different things, and it's throughput that matters the most. Consider a road. The M25, for example. Its capacity is highest when traffic isn't moving, because the gap between vehicles is minimised. Throughput is typically highest at a speed somewhere between 40 and 60mph. Actually it's more like 15mph, although that's unacceptably low to set a speed limit. Oh give it time. I'm sure the "Speed X - 10 causes less 2 * less fatalities" argument work its magic and we'll all soon be back to walking pace with a man with a red flag in front. Once 20mph is everywhere we'll soon have the campaigns for 10mph kicking off. But remember - Think Of The Children! -- Spud |
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
|
Quote:
|
No more walking up escalators at Holborn
On 30/11/2015 15:32, Recliner wrote:
There's also the length (ie, rise) of the escalator to consider. If it's very high, fewer people will choose to walk up, so the walking lane will be under-used, with long gaps. In such cases, having two standing lanes will maximise throughput. But with short escalators, lots of people will prefer to walk, so it's better to have a walking lane. I think this was the reason given for trying it first at Holborn as it has rather long escalators, but surely not the longest (Angel?). Just to comment on the capacity arguments: it might be true (though I'd like to see the figures in a peer-reviewed publication) that the throughput is higher with standing on both sides. But as a libertarian at heart I think this reduces passenger choice in a rather serious way. I nearly always walk up escalators, even long ones, unless I have heavy luggage or am very tired. But the current system gives me a choice - I can get there sooner if I walk up, or wait, usually a short time, to queue at the foot of the escalator to get into the standing lane. This new TfL proposal denies me that choice and seems regrettable on those grounds. It will also probably have the side-effect of encouraging more anti-social or gormless folk to stand on the left-hand side of *all* escalators, when it isn't desirable at all. -- Clive Page |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk