A Woodcraft wrote:

Tom Anderson writes:

More importantly, they're presumably cleared for higher levels of jerk
and deceleration than trains - after all, the limits on train
maneuvering are regulatory ones related to passenger comfort and
safety, rather than engineering ones, right? If they have
forward-facing all-seater accomodation, such a difference would make
sense.

If a vehicle is going to deccelerate sharply, I'd rather be in a backwards
facing seat than a forwards one!

I made two journeys in RAF troop carrying aircraft - to and from the
Falkland Islands. One was a converted BAC VC-10, the other a
converted Lockheed L-1011 TriStar. All the seats faced backwards.

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

I'm alweays slightly apprehensiver if I'm riding in
the front of a DLR train - what do I do if I see
an obstruction ahead, and the Train Captain is
checking tickets a good way back?

Digicam!

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...

I made two journeys in RAF troop carrying aircraft -
to and from the Falkland Islands. One was a converted
BAC VC-10, the other a converted Lockheed L-1011
TriStar. All the seats faced backwards.

Maybe they purchased them from the Italian Army?

"A Woodcraft" wrote in message
...

If a vehicle is going to deccelerate sharply, I'd rather be in a backwards
facing seat than a forwards one!

On buses I try to get the rear-facing seats for precisely the reason that a
bus can deccelerate a hell of a lot quicker than it's ever likely to
accelerate. Much improved comfort - especially when such a seat is mid-way
between axels!


--
Ronnie
--
www.greatcentralrailway.com
Adjust the farmyard animals before replying

Tony Polson writes:

A Woodcraft wrote:

Tom Anderson writes:

More importantly, they're presumably cleared for higher levels of jerk
and deceleration than trains - after all, the limits on train
maneuvering are regulatory ones related to passenger comfort and
safety, rather than engineering ones, right? If they have
forward-facing all-seater accomodation, such a difference would make
sense.

If a vehicle is going to deccelerate sharply, I'd rather be in a backwards
facing seat than a forwards one!

I made two journeys in RAF troop carrying aircraft - to and from the
Falkland Islands. One was a converted BAC VC-10, the other a
converted Lockheed L-1011 TriStar. All the seats faced backwards.

Quite! It has been suggested that commercial airlines do the
same. For some idea they don't seem to like the idea.

I suppose they are less likely to be shot down.

"John Rowland" writes:

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

I'm alweays slightly apprehensiver if I'm riding in
the front of a DLR train - what do I do if I see
an obstruction ahead, and the Train Captain is
checking tickets a good way back?

Digicam!

Do they not have a communication cord (passenger alarm...whatever...)?
Maybe there should be a big red stop button on the 'dashboard'?

Adam

Tony Polson wrote:
"mmellor" wrote:

ULTra pods are self (battery) powered, with no ability to couple
together. The theory is that the headway is as short as 2 or 3s, and
they recharge when stationary, awaiting the call.


You write about ULTra pods as though there are existing systems that
are carrying hundreds of thousands of people reliably, in comfort and
safely.

I used the word "theory" to indicate precisely the opposite.

Or is this just someone trying to float untried technology for an
extremely demanding application (one of the five busiest airports in
the world) on the basis of an unrepresentative small scale short term
trial in Cardiff, Wales?

You may well think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

Mike

Roland Perry wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:

If that were true, most of my bus journeys would be free too...

The difference being that your bus has a driver who can collect fares
as you board - driverless pods won't.

Most of your bus journeys aren't made by people clutching Euro or Dollar
bills, and nothing resembling 80p in sterling.

¤1 = £0.7 ... $1 = £0.6 ... close enough!

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Stevie D wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:

If that were true, most of my bus journeys would be free too...

The difference being that your bus has a driver who can collect fares
as you board

....unless I use the 25, 38, 73, 453, 436, 507, 521 or some others which
I've probably forgotten :-)

- driverless pods won't.

True. But bendy buses, the Tube, DLR and trams work without having the
driver collect fares (although I admit the functioning of fare
collection on bendy buses might not be classed as "working"...).

The website for Ultra mentions that smartcards would generally be used
for fare collection, and could also therefore be used to note any
special requirements of an individual traveller (e.g. mobility
impairment therefore extra time needed for boarding).

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

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:17:09 +0000, Dave Arquati wrote:

Stevie D wrote:

The difference being that your bus has a driver who can collect fares
as you board

...unless I use the 25, 38, 73, 453, 436, 507, 521 or some others which
I've probably forgotten :-)

12, 18, 29, 149 and 207 oh and the N29 ;-)
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!