On 2016\06\21 10:02, tim... wrote:

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
On 2016\06\20 21:56, tim... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 21:35:37 on Mon, 20 Jun
2016, Basil Jet remarked:
I think they should just build a dedicated walkway with a travelator

Luton Airport to the station is about 1.2 miles, which is similar to
the distance from Marble Arch station to Tottenham Court Road
station. i.e. three tube stops.

The travelator at Montparnasse is one of the longest I've seen, but
still only 180m. But the problem with Luton is it would be
substantially uphill too.

If you disembark at one of the remote hubs at LHR the "walk" to passport
control is the best part of a mile

I did it several times on my last overseas gig and on one occasion times
the walk to see how long it was.

There are a series of travelators to make the journey easier. I wasn't
suggesting a single mile-long travelator

Even if it's in sections, you still have a mile-worth of vehicle
continuously moving slowly, even though the trains from London only
arrive at the station every fifteen minutes or so. There must be
multiple ways to provide quick journeys for heavily peaked demand more
cheaply with a (mostly) narrower footprint.

I think you over-estimate the quantity of arrivals at the station

When I last went there (three weeks ago) -

I got out of the station (midday) to see a bus waiting, it already had
some people on it

We waited there for about 7-8 minutes whilst they sorted out all of the
passengers who didn't have tickets, but it was still not full when we
left. (IIRC there was also a southbound arrival whilst I waited)

Coming back it was during the 5pm rush hour and the buses were delayed
due to normal home from work congestion and there wasn't a bus at the stop.

There was already a huddle of people waiting.

It was about 3-4 minutes before the bus arrived, it took 2 minutes to
empty arriving pax, then we all crowded on and the bus left - again a
total wait of about 8 minutes for one full bus load.

So 8 buses per hour, 80 pax per bus = 640 pax per hour.

is 10 people per minute.

Not a huge number, is it?

I know that they arrive at the station (and the airport) in waves, but
ISTM that wave will flatten itself out due to the normal differences
that people have in walking time (with their luggage) from the platform
to the start of the walkway.

You're talking as if 1.2 miles of travelators is a free or cheap option.
It uses more land than a single track railway, and it needs a roof over
the whole length. I strongly suspect it costs more and uses more energy
in use. Travelators are used where the demand is continuous, which is
not the case here. The Stourbridge Town branch is similar to what should
be done (although that was built double track and subsequently singled).
The Stourbridge Town branch will not be converted to a travelator any
time soon.

On 21/06/2016 15:26, d wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:12:25 +0100
JNugent wrote:
On 21/06/2016 13:47, d wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:11:32 +0100
JNugent wrote:

What - a problem that people can afford to travel for pleasure?
And without your permission?
What a problem.

Hedonism is for teenagers. Adults should feel a collective responsibility to
the enviroment if not for themselves then at least for their children and
future generations. If that means the w/e break to prague takes a backseat
then so be it.

Well, that's your view.
You *do* understand that not everyone shares your belief that only the
rich should be allowed to travel, don't you?

Straw man.

Nonsense.

There should simply be an upper limit on the number of flights in and out of
uk airports. Then its first come first served. And no , that wouldn't force
the prices up

Forcing up fares is EXACTLY what would happen in such a situation. We
got to affordable flights by increasing the capacity of the world's air
services. Restricting them again will return us to the bad old days.

Have you ever actually looked at (and read/understood) the first twenty
pages of an Economics GCSE textbook?

because there are already capacity limits but prices are still
very low.

Prices are low because supply is well-balanced with demand (in favour of
the consumer).

If flights were reduced in number to what they were in (say) the 1970s
(pre-Laker), we would be squarely back in a situation where only the
rich could travel to other continents, and where the experience of the
average UK Joe would be one charter flight a year from Luton to Alicante
if he's lucky. That's how it used to be.

And I don't think it should be just limited to aircraft. A number
of cities around the world have limited cars to odd or even numberplates each
day to reduce pollution. That should be done in london too.

Really?

Still, its all moot. Most of humanity - including you it would seem - is too
stupid to see the long term picture or simply doesn't care. We'll just be
anther footnote in earths long history. Perhaps something a bit smarter will
evolve in a few million years and get it right.

I do not profess any right to circumscribe the rights of my fellow
citizens. But clearly, we cannot all make that ever-so-slightly proud
boast, can you?

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
On 2016\06\21 10:02, tim... wrote:

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
On 2016\06\20 21:56, tim... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 21:35:37 on Mon, 20 Jun
2016, Basil Jet remarked:
I think they should just build a dedicated walkway with a travelator

Luton Airport to the station is about 1.2 miles, which is similar to
the distance from Marble Arch station to Tottenham Court Road
station. i.e. three tube stops.

The travelator at Montparnasse is one of the longest I've seen, but
still only 180m. But the problem with Luton is it would be
substantially uphill too.

If you disembark at one of the remote hubs at LHR the "walk" to
passport
control is the best part of a mile

I did it several times on my last overseas gig and on one occasion
times
the walk to see how long it was.

There are a series of travelators to make the journey easier. I wasn't
suggesting a single mile-long travelator

Even if it's in sections, you still have a mile-worth of vehicle
continuously moving slowly, even though the trains from London only
arrive at the station every fifteen minutes or so. There must be
multiple ways to provide quick journeys for heavily peaked demand more
cheaply with a (mostly) narrower footprint.

I think you over-estimate the quantity of arrivals at the station

When I last went there (three weeks ago) -

I got out of the station (midday) to see a bus waiting, it already had
some people on it

We waited there for about 7-8 minutes whilst they sorted out all of the
passengers who didn't have tickets, but it was still not full when we
left. (IIRC there was also a southbound arrival whilst I waited)

Coming back it was during the 5pm rush hour and the buses were delayed
due to normal home from work congestion and there wasn't a bus at the
stop.

There was already a huddle of people waiting.

It was about 3-4 minutes before the bus arrived, it took 2 minutes to
empty arriving pax, then we all crowded on and the bus left - again a
total wait of about 8 minutes for one full bus load.

So 8 buses per hour, 80 pax per bus = 640 pax per hour.

is 10 people per minute.

Not a huge number, is it?

I know that they arrive at the station (and the airport) in waves, but
ISTM that wave will flatten itself out due to the normal differences
that people have in walking time (with their luggage) from the platform
to the start of the walkway.

You're talking as if 1.2 miles of travelators is a free

no, that's silly

or cheap option.

I am assuming it would be cheaper.

It uses more land than a single track railway,

does it?

The advantages of a walkway (with travelator) is that it doesn't have to be
level, or continuous.

Pax can be left to uses the normal footpath where one currently exists.

A fixed link would have to be new build all the way, and would have to find
a more level route, which may be longer

and it needs a roof over

Is that really going to add much to the costs. It doesn't have to be a
substantial roof

the whole length. I strongly suspect it costs more and uses more energy in
use.

No idea on the energy use

Travelators are used where the demand is continuous, which is not the case
here. The Stourbridge Town branch is similar to what should be done
(although that was built double track and subsequently singled). The
Stourbridge Town branch will not be converted to a travelator any time
soon.

That's already in situ. I am assuming that a walkway would go along a route
that a fixed link couldn't manage

tim

In message , at 17:44:13 on Tue, 21
Jun 2016, JNugent remarked:

Have you ever actually looked at (and read/understood) the first twenty
pages of an Economics GCSE textbook?

As an aside, a third of my third year degree course was doing the entire
first year economics lectures - but not having to do all the course
work.

The other thirds were in the Maths department (mainly stats and game
theory) and the Engineering Department (what they called back then
'Operational Research' - applying algorithms to the planning of things,
and queuing theory).

I think there should be more multi-disciplinary degrees like that.
--
Roland Perry

On 21.06.16 13:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:26:04 on Tue, 21 Jun
2016, tim... remarked:
10 people per minute.

Not a huge number, is it?

I know that they arrive at the station (and the airport) in waves,
but ISTM that wave will flatten itself out due to the normal
differences that people have in walking time (with their luggage)
from the platform to the start of the walkway.

It's far too small a number to justify a project as ambitious as you
suggest.

and building a monorail/whatever other fixed link is less ambitions?

That's even worse. The bus is the most sensible solution.

Monorails have a tendency not to work, with Newark Liberty Airport being
a prime example.

What about an H-Bahn, however, the type of which they have at Dortmund
and at Düsseldorf Airport? Perhaps a turnkey project?

Really, it's just a thought.

wrote in message ...
On 21.06.16 13:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:26:04 on Tue, 21 Jun
2016, tim... remarked:
10 people per minute.

Not a huge number, is it?

I know that they arrive at the station (and the airport) in waves,
but ISTM that wave will flatten itself out due to the normal
differences that people have in walking time (with their luggage)
from the platform to the start of the walkway.

It's far too small a number to justify a project as ambitious as you
suggest.

and building a monorail/whatever other fixed link is less ambitions?

That's even worse. The bus is the most sensible solution.

Monorails have a tendency not to work, with Newark Liberty Airport being a
prime example.

What about an H-Bahn, however, the type of which they have at Dortmund and
at Düsseldorf Airport? Perhaps a turnkey project?

are you simply suggesting the the technology used should be a "hanging"
train rather than one sitting on top of a rail

surely the average person would consider that is a "monorail", it still only
has one rail

tim

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:44:13 +0100
JNugent wrote:
On 21/06/2016 15:26, d wrote:
You *do* understand that not everyone shares your belief that only the
rich should be allowed to travel, don't you?

Straw man.

Nonsense.

Sorry pal, you can't say "your belief" and expect to get away with it when its
a lie.

There should simply be an upper limit on the number of flights in and out of
uk airports. Then its first come first served. And no , that wouldn't force
the prices up

Forcing up fares is EXACTLY what would happen in such a situation. We
got to affordable flights by increasing the capacity of the world's air
services. Restricting them again will return us to the bad old days.

How will restricting them to current levels suddenly make the price go up?
Will there be a mass surge of people who hearing about the restrictions
suddenly get the urge to fly?

Have you ever actually looked at (and read/understood) the first twenty
pages of an Economics GCSE textbook?

Spare me your pathetic attempt at sarcasm. Besides which, the future
enviromental considerations of unlimited air travel trump the economics.

Prices are low because supply is well-balanced with demand (in favour of
the consumer).

So you're saying there are too many flights? Given a lot fly half empty you're
probably right. Perhaps we should reduce them.

rich could travel to other continents, and where the experience of the
average UK Joe would be one charter flight a year from Luton to Alicante
if he's lucky. That's how it used to be.

Boo hoo, poor Joe. Perhaps he'll just have to have his beer and chips and
1am fight in Billericay instead.

And I don't think it should be just limited to aircraft. A number
of cities around the world have limited cars to odd or even numberplates each
day to reduce pollution. That should be done in london too.

Really?

Yes really.

I do not profess any right to circumscribe the rights of my fellow
citizens.

I'm sorry, you think they're not already in a hundred different ways? Are
you really that naive? Well, maybe you are and maybe you're happily driving
around with no drivers license in an uninsured and untaxed vehicle. Or maybe
you take a **** in the middle of the street because finding a toilet is a
hassle.

But clearly, we cannot all make that ever-so-slightly proud boast, can you?

Living in a soceity that its trying to make the future better means
occasionally you and "Joe" will have to make an ever so slightly small
sacrifice. If that means taking one flight less a year or not being able to
drive your car into a city every other day - and I feel your pain, I really
do - then I don't have a problem with that.

--
Spud

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 19:11:28 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
As an aside, a third of my third year degree course was doing the entire
first year economics lectures - but not having to do all the course
work.

The other thirds were in the Maths department (mainly stats and game
theory) and the Engineering Department (what they called back then
'Operational Research' - applying algorithms to the planning of things,
and queuing theory).

I think there should be more multi-disciplinary degrees like that.

Depends if they lead to a better chance of a job at the end given the amount
students have to cough up these days. Also a lot of disciplines get more
and more complex as the years go buy. Even when I did my compsci degree back
in the 90s we covered everything from CPU architecture to AI, formal proofs,
graphics, networking, DB normalisation and structuring and so on. Given the
advances in those fields in the intervening years there's probably 2 or 3
times the amount to learn for an undergrad even if the core principles remain
the same.

--
Spud

In message , at 08:41:28 on Wed, 22 Jun
2016, d remarked:
Prices are low because supply is well-balanced with demand (in favour of
the consumer).

So you're saying there are too many flights? Given a lot fly half empty you're
probably right.

Easyjet's annual load factor is 91.5%, and Ryanair 83%, both much more
than train companies.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 08:47:22 on Wed, 22 Jun
2016, d remarked:
As an aside, a third of my third year degree course was doing the entire
first year economics lectures - but not having to do all the course
work.

The other thirds were in the Maths department (mainly stats and game
theory) and the Engineering Department (what they called back then
'Operational Research' - applying algorithms to the planning of things,
and queuing theory).

I think there should be more multi-disciplinary degrees like that.

Depends if they lead to a better chance of a job at the end given the amount
students have to cough up these days.

If you don't understand economics then it leads to all sorts of poor
decisions.
--
Roland Perry