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.

In article , (Iain Archer)
wrote:

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.

Two-steps at a time is the trick. Downward that tends to break into a bit of
a run.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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"?

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

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

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.

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

In message , at 16:56:41 on Mon, 30 Nov
2015, d remarked:
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!

Not many pedestrians on the M25.
--
Roland Perry

That won't deter the anti-motor car fanatics!

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