On 26.03.17 0:54, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 25.03.17 21:26, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 25.03.17 17:31, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 25.03.17 9:31, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:40:59 on Fri, 24 Mar
2017, Richard J. remarked:

I recall that when the transit first opened, Heathrow Airport claimed
that the "very long" escalators from the main termainal were the
longest in London, longer than the longest LU escalators at Angel.

The escalators in recliner's pictures don't look that long. But I'm
convinced the layout at T5, which extends the idea of making people
travel the maximum distance they'll tolerate to and from gates, is to
allow them to be more leisurely about their baggage handling.

There's less walking in T5 than in most other large terminals, such as LHR
T2, either Gatwick terminal or Madrid Barajas T4. It's a very well-designed
terminal that's a pleasure to use (and I'm a regular user of it, which I
don't think you are).

As for the length of the departures escalator, do you really think this
doesn't look very long?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...6761/lightbox/

Here's another pic:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2162/2...56a8379188.jpg

It goes through the equivalent of five high floors:
https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/w/images/b/b2/xHeathrow_terminal_5_section.jpg.pagespeed.ic.0TNb Vhu1wB.jpg

http://www.e-architect.co.uk/images/..._concept4a.jpg

The Wikipedia page claims, without attribution, that "the escalators are
also the longest in the United Kingdom, longer than those at Angel tube
station on the London Underground, which had held the title since 1992".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ange...ion#Escalators

Thus, the longest ones in Western Europe?

They've still got nothing compared with the Pyongyang Metro, which
reportedly has the world's longest escalator.


This one?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/8717487216/in/album-72157633424928749/lightbox/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/8717486808/in/album-72157633424928749/lightbox/

Being so long, no-one attempts to walk up or even down it.

Where is that, Puhung?

Yes, PuhÅ*ng.


There is one station on that network, though I don't think that it's
Puhung, which has what is the world's longest escalator.

I don't know if it's longer, but here's one I took at Kaeson station:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/8717502198/in/album-72157633424928749/lightbox/

I liked the other pictures as well.


Pyongyang is fairly flat, so I wouldn't have thought there'd be much
difference in escalator lengths.

Is there much variation in depths?

I don't know, but I don't know why there would be. The metro is too deep to
have to be concerned by buildings and roads above. Any rivers are also
high above it.


But it does raise a question: who made
them? I'm guessing it must be a Chinese company. I doubt that North Korea
was capable of making the world's longest escalators back in 1970.

I thought that they initially received technical assistance from the
Soviet Union, though I know that the rolling stock was Chinese.

Yes, you're right, those long escalators may well be Russian. The Russians
do have significant experience of very deep metro lines.

I think so. Chinese metro systems are nowhere near as deep as anything
that one would see in North Korea or the former Soviet Union, AIUI.

One other thing that I have also heard about the escalators in Pyongyang
is that they use ***a lot*** of energy, and are not at all economical.

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
10:27:14 on Sun, 26 Mar 2017, remarked:

Not only do I have a brain that happens to work in that way (in
effect I have a "photographic memory" for walking/driving routes),
I've been using the tube for 50yrs. In the case of Kings Cross, I
followed the design and building with a fine tooth comb. Here's my
much-discussed guess at the final configuration, long before they
started building:

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/kx-composite.jpg

Yet from the stairs beyond the end of platform 8, labelled Kings Cross
Mainline (ECML) in your diagram, the signs at the bottom of the stairs
direct passengers to turn right for the Victoria Line while turning
left is a much shorter walking route. This is as daft as imagining
that one-way streets reduce traffic.

Roland has often pointed out that there are sometimes better ways
through the Kings Cross underground maze than the signposted routes,
which seem designed to spread people out, in order to reduce
over-crowding, rather than to give them the shortest route. They also,
in some cases, lead to step-free routes.

Hence my reference to the fallacy that (longer) one-way streets reduce
traffic. Sending people on longer routes creates congestion, especially
when so spectacularly longer than the direct route.

It's not the equivalent of one-way streets - they've built a three
lane each way inner ring road in addition to the existing High Street.

Not so long ago they recognised this and reversed the direction arrow I
was referring to. The change was then undone.

Perhaps the congestion was worse?

It undermines faith in direction signing when people discover they are
being sent on long detours.

If they are non-regulars they won't even know. Regulars who care will
take the shorter one.

Some heroic assumptions there.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 2017\03\26 13:25, wrote:
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

Not only do I have a brain that happens to work in that way (in
effect I have a "photographic memory" for walking/driving routes),
I've been using the tube for 50yrs. In the case of Kings Cross, I
followed the design and building with a fine tooth comb. Here's my
much-discussed guess at the final configuration, long before they
started building:

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/kx-composite.jpg

Yet from the stairs beyond the end of platform 8, labelled Kings Cross
Mainline (ECML) in your diagram, the signs at the bottom of the stairs
direct passengers to turn right for the Victoria Line while turning left is
a much shorter walking route. This is as daft as imagining that one-way
streets reduce traffic.

If every road ran North/East and no roads ran South/West, that would
reduce traffic!

Seriously, some one way systems definitely reduce traffic on the roads
concerned, especially if there are banned turns as well. For instance,
Fairchild Street in Shoreditch is westbound only with no right turn in,
so I have never seen a vehicle using it.

On 2017\03\26 14:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:20:26 on Sun, 26 Mar
2017, Basil Jet remarked:
I wonder where "people mover" ends and metro train begins?

The newish system at CDG is pretty long.

Perhaps a working definition might be "is more than half serving outside
of the airport perimeter fence"?

How about "Does a single facility account for the majority of
passengers at all of the stations except one?"

What do you mean by "single facility"? The CDG system connects
terminals, car parks, and the train stations. Traffic is spread fairly
evenly amongst them all.

Obviously CDG is a single facility. I can't believe you even asked.
They're not going to relocate the car parks to Corsica and leave the
airport where it is, are they?

In message , at 03:42:40 on Mon, 27 Mar
2017, Basil Jet remarked:

I wonder where "people mover" ends and metro train begins?

The newish system at CDG is pretty long.

Perhaps a working definition might be "is more than half serving outside
of the airport perimeter fence"?

How about "Does a single facility account for the majority of
passengers at all of the stations except one?"

What do you mean by "single facility"? The CDG system connects
terminals, car parks, and the train stations. Traffic is spread fairly
evenly amongst them all.

Obviously CDG is a single facility. I can't believe you even asked.

That's why I asked. I'd regard an airport terminal, a car park and a
train station as three separate facilities.

--
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:33:36
on Sun, 26 Mar 2017, remarked:

It undermines faith in direction signing when people discover they are
being sent on long detours.

If they are non-regulars they won't even know. Regulars who care will
take the shorter one.

Some heroic assumptions there.

What are your alternative assumptions?
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
18:33:36 on Sun, 26 Mar 2017, remarked:

It undermines faith in direction signing when people discover they
are being sent on long detours.

If they are non-regulars they won't even know. Regulars who care will
take the shorter one.

Some heroic assumptions there.

What are your alternative assumptions?

Be more open with people.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 03:42:59
on Mon, 27 Mar 2017, remarked:

It undermines faith in direction signing when people discover they
are being sent on long detours.

If they are non-regulars they won't even know. Regulars who care will
take the shorter one.

Some heroic assumptions there.

What are your alternative assumptions?

Be more open with people.

That's not an assumption, it's a course of action. And one that would
increase congestion. I can remember when the lower concourse of the
Victoria Line (and it's not small) was full in the evening rush hour of
people queuing for the escalator up to the original ticket hall.

You want to go back to that?
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
03:42:59 on Mon, 27 Mar 2017, remarked:

It undermines faith in direction signing when people discover they
are being sent on long detours.

If they are non-regulars they won't even know. Regulars who care
will take the shorter one.

Some heroic assumptions there.

What are your alternative assumptions?

Be more open with people.

That's not an assumption, it's a course of action. And one that would
increase congestion. I can remember when the lower concourse of the
Victoria Line (and it's not small) was full in the evening rush hour
of people queuing for the escalator up to the original ticket hall.

You want to go back to that?

They can choose for themselves instead of being treated like children.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 05:11:44
on Mon, 27 Mar 2017, remarked:
It undermines faith in direction signing when people discover they
are being sent on long detours.

If they are non-regulars they won't even know. Regulars who care
will take the shorter one.

Some heroic assumptions there.

What are your alternative assumptions?

Be more open with people.

That's not an assumption, it's a course of action. And one that would
increase congestion. I can remember when the lower concourse of the
Victoria Line (and it's not small) was full in the evening rush hour
of people queuing for the escalator up to the original ticket hall.

You want to go back to that?

They can choose for themselves instead of being treated like children.

The "people who know" will than have to take the long route, because the
"children" as you put it will be clogging up the sohrt route.
--
Roland Perry