Michael Bell wrote:
In article .com,
Boltar
wrote:
Safety & Practicality:
How do you propose a constantly moving belt crosses major
intersections
when it has hundreds or thousands of people are in the vehicles on
it
any
any one time? Stop the whole belt on a red? Stop bits of bit?
Disconnect
the vehicle and risk the next one hitting it unless you have some
complex
control system? I can just see the HSE really going for this one.

Moving belts/chains have been dumped as impractical even on
reserved
rights of way railways, using them in a street setting is an absurd
idea.

B2003

They obviously have to be grade-separated.

So there would be ugly elevated concrete guideways everywhere. Yuck,
even
worse.

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
ups.com...
Michael Bell wrote:
In article .com,
Boltar
wrote:
Safety & Practicality:

Moving belts/chains have been dumped as impractical
even on reserved rights of way railways, using them in
a street setting is an absurd idea.

They obviously have to be grade-separated.

So there would be ugly elevated concrete
guideways everywhere. Yuck, even worse.

Actually, a grade separated travelator route from Waterloo Station to Euston
Station could be achieved with merely 5 short subways, and the appropriation
of the Kingsway Tram Subway. Some roads would have to be narrowed, but the
tram scheme also requires that. I can't comment on how this would affect
access to properties, though.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

In article . com, Boltar
wrote:

Michael Bell wrote:
In article .com,
Boltar
wrote:
Safety & Practicality: How do you propose a constantly moving belt
crosses major intersections when it has hundreds or thousands of people
are in the vehicles on it any any one time? Stop the whole belt on a
red? Stop bits of bit? Disconnect the vehicle and risk the next one
hitting it unless you have some complex control system? I can just see
the HSE really going for this one.

Moving belts/chains have been dumped as impractical even on reserved
rights of way railways, using them in a street setting is an absurd
idea.

B2003

They obviously have to be grade-separated.

So there would be ugly elevated concrete guideways everywhere. Yuck,
even
worse.

B2003

There certainly are problems in that direction, but problems are not
necessarily insoluble problems. There would be no problem in running such a
way across the concourse of big stations, they already have foot walkways
over some! Likewise, there would be little problem adding them to the side of
bridges - the weight is trivial. In many kinds of modern developments,
they could be fitted in. Streets are a problem, the two main possibilities
are to build them into the buildings at basement level or at 1st floor level.
The objections should not be too serious - building owners want people to be
brought to their buildings!

Michael Bell

--

In article , John Rowland
wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message
ups.com...
Michael Bell wrote:
In article .com,
Boltar
wrote:
Safety & Practicality:

Moving belts/chains have been dumped as impractical
even on reserved rights of way railways, using them in
a street setting is an absurd idea.

They obviously have to be grade-separated.

So there would be ugly elevated concrete
guideways everywhere. Yuck, even worse.

Actually, a grade separated travelator route from Waterloo Station to
Euston Station could be achieved with merely 5 short subways, and the
appropriation of the Kingsway Tram Subway. Some roads would have to be
narrowed, but the tram scheme also requires that. I can't comment on how
this would affect access to properties, though.

Thank you for that!

Michael Bell.
--

In article , Aidan Stanger
wrote:
Michael Bell wrote:
In article , Paul Weaver:
"Michael Bell" wrote...

The never-stop railway consists of cabins for 6-8 passengers
which are moved along the track by a continuous spiral laid between
the tracks. The pitch of the spiral is fine at stations, so at the
stations the gaps between the cabins close up and the cabins move
slowly and the passengers can get in and out. As the cabins reach the
end of the station the doors close and when they leave the station
the pitch of the spiral coarsens so the gap between the cabins widens
and they pick up speed. The cabins can be slowed down to go round
sharp corners. The front and back wheels of the cabins run on
different rails so the cabins can go up and down steep slopes without
tilting them, in the way that steps on an escalator do. To be able to
go round sharp corners and go up and down steep slopes are important
advantages in fitting such a system into a town. The system was
successfully demonstrated at an exhibition in Wembley in the 1920s.

Similar to ski lifts then?

Yes.

(snip)

And just where in London would you put them?

That's for others to work out, and another correspondent has.

Don't you think the ability to stop is important? Remember, the
escalators all have emergency stop buttons.

Speeds are low and like ski lifts they can have emergency stop buttons,

How do you expect passengers to board and alight safely with crowded
platforms?

If you want sharp corners and steep slopes, get a monorail instead! Or
maybe you should consider an atmospheric railway - AIUI that system
(originally invented by Brunel, but not practical until the late 20th
century when more reliable material were available) is far cheaper than
linear induction motors.

A minor point.

If you are talking about airport Travelators, then yes, exactly like
them, except that none I have seen are CASCADED, the key feature of my
proposal, There is plenty of space to cascade them, but airport
authorities WANT to slow down and spread out the flow of passengers (they
have different walking speeds) to make it easier to cope peaks of flow,
and also to give the passengers lots of waiting time which they could use
for shopping.

How would cascaded travelators give the passengers less time for
shopping?

Speed may seem important for airports, but really, as I say the airport
authorities want to spread out the peaks of large aircraft. And to give them
time to shop.


We can all walk at 4 mph (= 1M/sec), so I think 4 mph steps would be
acceptable, so 3 belts would get us up to 12 mph and 4 belts would
get us up to 16 mph. This is much faster than town buses and after
allowing for the time taken walking to the station and waiting for
the train, competitive with Metros.

No. You and I can. Old people and wheelchairs cant. Besides, would you
like to ride on a skateboard at 16mph?

This is a misunderstanding. If you are on a 16 mph belt, the neighbouring
belt is at 12 mph.

So what would you do when you reached the end?

Either you do it as an endless loop, or have longer slow belts than fast
ones.
Slow side
.................................................. ............
.........................................
...................
Fast side

So that as you get to the end of the fast belt, you transfer to the
slow belts.

[snip]

The problem is the space between the belts. Have you ever wondered why
escalators have those brushes at the edges? It's to keep people away
from the narrow gap between the escalator and the wall, which is
surprisingly dangerous. Children whose footwear got caught in the gap
have very painfully lost feet! Now escalators and travelators are
designed to prevent such accidents, but if people had to cross the gap,
it would be much harder to keep them away from it.

You see really good design nowadays.

Michael Bell.

--

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...

There certainly are problems in that direction, but
problems are not necessarily insoluble problems.
There would be no problem in running such a way
across the concourse of big stations, they already
have foot walkways over some! Likewise, there
would be little problem adding them to the side of
bridges - the weight is trivial. In many kinds of
modern developments, they could be fitted in.
Streets are a problem, the two main possibilities
are to build them into the buildings at basement
level or at 1st floor level. The objections should
not be too serious - building owners want people
to be brought to their buildings!

But they don't want people carrying bombs brought through their basements.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

Actually, a grade separated travelator route from Waterloo Station to
Euston
Station could be achieved with merely 5 short subways, and the
appropriation
of the Kingsway Tram Subway. Some roads would have to be narrowed, but the
tram scheme also requires that. I can't comment on how this would affect
access to properties, though.

Look up, not down!

You could route it above the pavements with bridges across the road
junctions, and across the river. Escalators up to travelator level.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

Terry Harper wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

Actually, a grade separated travelator route from Waterloo Station to Euston
Station could be achieved with merely 5 short subways, and the appropriation
of the Kingsway Tram Subway. Some roads would have to be narrowed, but the
tram scheme also requires that. I can't comment on how this would affect
access to properties, though.

Look up, not down!

You could route it above the pavements with bridges across the road
junctions, and across the river. Escalators up to travelator level.

Highly popular with first-floor residents, I should imagine. It would
ruin the streetscape if it were above street level.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

In article , John Rowland
wrote:
"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...

There certainly are problems in that direction, but
problems are not necessarily insoluble problems.
There would be no problem in running such a way
across the concourse of big stations, they already
have foot walkways over some! Likewise, there
would be little problem adding them to the side of
bridges - the weight is trivial. In many kinds of
modern developments, they could be fitted in.
Streets are a problem, the two main possibilities
are to build them into the buildings at basement
level or at 1st floor level. The objections should
not be too serious - building owners want people
to be brought to their buildings!

But they don't want people carrying bombs brought through their basements.

That's a risk with all forms of transport.

Michael Bell

--

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Terry Harper wrote:

You could route it above the pavements with
bridges across the road junctions, and across
the river. Escalators up to travelator level.

Highly popular with first-floor residents, I should imagine.
It would ruin the streetscape if it were above street level.

The clearance required is also much greater. Subways beneath the roads would
be shallow and could easily come back up to street level.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes