I see that LU is to have another, much longer trial of the 'stand on both
sides of the escalator' rule at Holborn:

http://railnews.mobi/news/2016/03/10...-stand-on.html

The previous trial confirmed the theory that, at busy times, escalator
throughout was much higher if people stood on both sides. This time,
they're testing how to get the message across.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:52:24 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I see that LU is to have another, much longer trial of the 'stand on both
sides of the escalator' rule at Holborn:

http://railnews.mobi/news/2016/03/10...-stand-on.html

The previous trial confirmed the theory that, at busy times, escalator
throughout was much higher if people stood on both sides. This time,
they're testing how to get the message across.

FTA:

"It may not seem right that you can go quicker by standing still, but our
experiments at Holborn have proved that it can be true"

Sorry matey, but it depends who you're talking about. People who would have
stood anyway will probably get up quicker. Those who would have walked up will
inevitably be delayed.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:52:24 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I see that LU is to have another, much longer trial of the 'stand on both
sides of the escalator' rule at Holborn:

http://railnews.mobi/news/2016/03/10...-stand-on.html

The previous trial confirmed the theory that, at busy times, escalator
throughout was much higher if people stood on both sides. This time,
they're testing how to get the message across.

FTA:

"It may not seem right that you can go quicker by standing still, but our
experiments at Holborn have proved that it can be true"

Sorry matey, but it depends who you're talking about. People who would have
stood anyway will probably get up quicker. Those who would have walked up will
inevitably be delayed.

It's all about throughput, not maximising the speed of every passenger.
Many more people use the left side of long up escalators if they can stand,
and don't have to climb. This is a long established theory which the
previous trial confirmed. Now the challenge is to get commuters to change
their behaviour on certain escalators at certain times.

In message , at 16:00:08 on Thu, 10 Mar
2016, d remarked:
I see that LU is to have another, much longer trial of the 'stand on both
sides of the escalator' rule at Holborn:

http://railnews.mobi/news/2016/03/10...-stand-on.html

The previous trial confirmed the theory that, at busy times, escalator
throughout was much higher if people stood on both sides. This time,
they're testing how to get the message across.

FTA:

"It may not seem right that you can go quicker by standing still, but our
experiments at Holborn have proved that it can be true"

Sorry matey, but it depends who you're talking about. People who would have
stood anyway will probably get up quicker. Those who would have walked up will
inevitably be delayed.

Sadly not, because they would have been delayed in the bigger queue for
the escalator.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:26:38 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:00:08 on Thu, 10 Mar
2016, d remarked:
I see that LU is to have another, much longer trial of the 'stand on both
sides of the escalator' rule at Holborn:

http://railnews.mobi/news/2016/03/10...s-stand-on.htm


The previous trial confirmed the theory that, at busy times, escalator
throughout was much higher if people stood on both sides. This time,
they're testing how to get the message across.

FTA:

"It may not seem right that you can go quicker by standing still, but our
experiments at Holborn have proved that it can be true"

Sorry matey, but it depends who you're talking about. People who would have
stood anyway will probably get up quicker. Those who would have walked up will
inevitably be delayed.

Sadly not, because they would have been delayed in the bigger queue for
the escalator.

Not as much as they'll have been delayed standing all the way up the long
escalator at Holborn. Besides, often you can walk past all the people waiting
for the right.

--
Spud

In message , at 16:40:44 on Thu, 10 Mar
2016, d remarked:
Sorry matey, but it depends who you're talking about. People who would have
stood anyway will probably get up quicker. Those who would have walked up will
inevitably be delayed.

Sadly not, because they would have been delayed in the bigger queue for
the escalator.

Not as much as they'll have been delayed standing all the way up the long
escalator at Holborn.

TfL's stats would claim otherwise.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:59:13 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:40:44 on Thu, 10 Mar
2016, d remarked:
Sorry matey, but it depends who you're talking about. People who would have
stood anyway will probably get up quicker. Those who would have walked up
will
inevitably be delayed.

Sadly not, because they would have been delayed in the bigger queue for
the escalator.

Not as much as they'll have been delayed standing all the way up the long
escalator at Holborn.

TfL's stats would claim otherwise.

I'm sure they would, but I wouldn't believe them. The *average* speed of
everyone going up no doubt will be faster. But for those of us who arn't
bone idle lard butts it'll almost certainly be slower. Holborn is a long
escalator and there's no way the wait at the bottom can ever be long enough
to make up for standing all the way to the top.

--
Spud

In message , at 10:43:02 on Fri, 11 Mar
2016, d remarked:
Not as much as they'll have been delayed standing all the way up the long
escalator at Holborn.

TfL's stats would claim otherwise.

I'm sure they would, but I wouldn't believe them. The *average* speed of
everyone going up no doubt will be faster. But for those of us who arn't
bone idle lard butts it'll almost certainly be slower. Holborn is a long
escalator and there's no way the wait at the bottom can ever be long enough
to make up for standing all the way to the top.

How much delay do you think is involved (by having the stand)? When it's
busy the walking lane doesn't necessary flow very well, and I'd expect
we are talking about getting a couple of dozen steps advantage. So
around ten seconds. It's easily possible to queue that long at the
bottom of a crowded escalator (as I did at Baker Street Jubilee Line to
Met escalator last week in the evening rush hour).
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:40:44 on Thu, 10 Mar
2016, d remarked:
Sorry matey, but it depends who you're talking about. People who would have
stood anyway will probably get up quicker. Those who would have walked up will
inevitably be delayed.

Sadly not, because they would have been delayed in the bigger queue for
the escalator.

Not as much as they'll have been delayed standing all the way up the long
escalator at Holborn.

TfL's stats would claim otherwise.

Do you have a copy or a link to them? My suspcion is that the press office
has confused latency and throughput.

--
Mike Bristow

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:00:42 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:43:02 on Fri, 11 Mar
2016, d remarked:
Not as much as they'll have been delayed standing all the way up the long
escalator at Holborn.

TfL's stats would claim otherwise.

I'm sure they would, but I wouldn't believe them. The *average* speed of
everyone going up no doubt will be faster. But for those of us who arn't
bone idle lard butts it'll almost certainly be slower. Holborn is a long
escalator and there's no way the wait at the bottom can ever be long enough
to make up for standing all the way to the top.

How much delay do you think is involved (by having the stand)? When it's

IIRC it takes probably 45 secs to a minute to get to the top by standing at
Holborn compared to maybe 20 seconds by unimpeded walking on the left.
Perhaps someone who uses the station and is bored one day could measure it
for us

busy the walking lane doesn't necessary flow very well, and I'd expect
we are talking about getting a couple of dozen steps advantage. So
around ten seconds. It's easily possible to queue that long at the
bottom of a crowded escalator (as I did at Baker Street Jubilee Line to
Met escalator last week in the evening rush hour).

Ten seconds sounds about right, maybe even a bit longer.

Anyway, I don't blame them for doing this. That station gets very crowded
and they need the throughput. Just saying that for people who normally walk
up it will almost certainly be slower despite what they say. If just for once
they were honest something instead of constant spin they'd get more respect.

--
Spud