News   Jul 10, 2024
U of T's Rotman Commerce Design by Danish Architects 3XN Unveiled
 1.9K     1 
News   Jul 10, 2024
News Roundup for July 10, 2024
 644     0 
News   Jul 10, 2024
Slice of Town
 969     0 

Sharon Yetman's Subway Safety Plan (Better barrier for subways 'an obsession')

Status
Not open for further replies.
It sure is easy to second guess yourself, when it comes to the efficiency part of the innovation for the station skipping stuff.

There are once again 3 pieces 1. "separated passenger flow" for single sided platforms, with TTC already taking this, indicates I am on the right track.
2. Extreme cost effective platform safety (which is not available unless using my invention portion).

and 3. is the fun stuff: A new strategy I came up with because of affordable and feasible platform safety which opens a whole new realm.

Think of it like a Metronome. If is is set on slow speed, you only have the pointer passing through the centre section only so many times per minutes.

It is at slow speed ( relative to trains, because of a track fire, a suicide death, a PAA Alarm, or just bottlenecking on the system, sitting in the tunnels, or lastly in this case because of the added delays of so many stations to pick up etc.)

This design of stategic station skipping allows like the metronome to operate a whole lot faster, thereby the pointer passes through the centre point twice as often.

In other terms, the average speed goes from (it's rated on some document somewhere, don't have it handy), but say the average speed goes from about 27 to 54 kilometres an hour, this is the 203% improvement capability having nothing to change in headway time. At some point, once again for ultimate mazimization, atc may provide the full benefit of the 203%.

If you drive straight end to end at 88 kilometres an hour. It should only take 35.768 minutes. Then you add the time for your strategicly planned stops.
Station skipping is only safe and possible with platform safety. Today it takes about 105 minutes end to end. That's includes the Yonge Bloor changes, that I instigated.
Sharon.
 
subway safety said:
In other terms, the average speed goes from (it's rated on some document somewhere, don't have it handy), but say the average speed goes from about 27 to 54 kilometres an hour, this is the 203% improvement capability having nothing to change in headway time. At some point, once again for ultimate mazimization, atc may provide the full benefit of the 203%.
Sharon.
Click to expand...

You've been given too much credit, you can't complete 5'th grade math computations.

54 km/h - 27 km/h = 27 km/h speed increase
27 km/h / 27 km/h = 100% increase. Or in other words, doubled...

100% NOT 203%
 
subway safety said:
In other terms, the average speed goes from (it's rated on some document somewhere, don't have it handy), but say the average speed goes from about 27 to 54 kilometres an hour, this is the 203% improvement capability having nothing to change in headway time. At some point, once again for ultimate mazimization, atc may provide the full benefit of the 203%.
Click to expand...

I know it is your habit to not read any of the critical posts, or at least to not make any effort to understand them, but you are still providing evidence you are simply not grasping a basic concept.

If headway is 1:30, you are passing 40 trains an hour.

If those trains are running 100 km/h, they are covering their total trip in a lot less time, but so long as the headway is 1:30, you are still only moving 40 trains an hour past any given point.

You could run those trains at 1000 km/h, but if the headway is still 1:30, you are still only moving 40 trains an hour. Capacity is unchanged.

In rush hour, the primary limiting factor for subway capacity is that it is not SAFE to run trains at a shorter headway. This has to do with manually being able to ensure they aren't driving a train into the back of the one in front of it. Nothing to do with platform barriers or how people move on the platform.

Do the math. Figure out the line capacity for trains with a headway of 1:00 (60 trains/hr) whose peak speed is only 10 km/h. Compare that to a headway of 1:30 (40 trains/hr) where the peak speed is 100 km/h. Those 100 km/h passengers are getting to their destination a lot faster, but you aren't able to move as many of them.

The only way to SAFELY reduce headway is through ATC.

Until you genuinely understand the concept of headway and the resulting line capacity, you are going to continue to make yourself to look like a deluded fool clinging to their own little fantasy world.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
You've been given too much credit, you can't complete 5'th grade math computations.

54 km/h - 27 km/h = 27 km/h speed increase
27 km/h / 27 km/h = 100% increase. Or in other words, doubled...

100% NOT 203%
Click to expand...

But the problem is that she is only looking at speed, not headway. That 100% theoretical number is how much faster an individual passenger would travel, not how many more passengers you could move.

She continues to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of such a basic transit concept.
 
Asterix said:
But the problem is that she is only looking at speed, not headway. That 100% theoretical number is how much faster an individual passenger would travel, not how many more passengers you could move.

She continues to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of such a basic transit concept.
Click to expand...

I know, but when her own numbers are wrong how do you expect her to follow logic.
 
Further information Sharon might want to read (and take the time to understand):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headway#Capacity

"Since the headway of a metro is constrained by signalling considerations, not vehicle performance, reductions in headway through improved signalling have a direct impact on passenger capacity. For this reason, the London Underground system has been spending a considerable amount of money on upgrading the Jubilee and Central lines with new signalling to reduce the headway from about 3 minutes to 1, in preparation for the 2012 Olympics."

With the current signalling, it is UNSAFE for the TTC to run with headways of 1:00. Think of the carnage in those pits and tunnels of death!
 
Agreed with all above. And to boot, she basically increases speed by skipping stations, thereby denying good service (and imposing transfers) on a good proportion of patrons. This is how she achieves a faster average trip time.

She thinks she's made some grand discovery, that cutting the number of stations in half will reduce trip times. That's true, of course. Her mistake is that she believes this will increase significantly increase capacity. Not true, of course. Sharon can't seem to grasp that line capacity is a mathematical function of headway and train volume.

Even crowding won't be reduced. If headways remain the same, you have the same amount of people on the same amount of trains. You're just getting them there faster. Maybe somebody will appreciate that. But most patrons who will now face a longer bus ride or have to travel in the opposite direction and transfer are unlikely to see a lot of value in this system.
 
That's where the stop and creep would be beneficial for Yonge & Bloor only comes in.

This is what they did before the Russell Hill Accident at all 69 stations.

I don't know all the details for the Russell Hill Accident, ....over worked workers, new workers, under trained, perhaps one already suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

I guess for arguement sake, do the math. 69 stations, in 60 years, with trains stopping every 2 and 1/2 minutes for 20 hours a day.

Math may show even if all of the above factors were not factors, which I don't know. but....it might be a .0000000000001 factor for an potential accident again with a train hitting another train from behind.

Steve Munro, highly recommends the stop and creep method for Yonge & Bloor.

Lastly, with the benefit of atc with a larger scale strategy, mass transit has the capability to move more of the masses.

Right now, it isn't moving well, it isn't moving safe, and it is not moving confortably with the face plant thing.

I obviously don't get paid for caring or working on an invention if I have wronge portions. As I said before the capacity thing, is the fun portion. The obviouse ideal is a double sided platform for Yonge and Bloor. This is too expensive and perhaps not feasible. I have created a successful solution for that. The other things..... are thinking and developing beyond. I still feel I have created good solutions for the beyond stuff, but once again, you will always run into another barrier. That's why the stop and creep thing, or have a exception to the rule stop and creep, while keeping a say 60 second headway just for Yonge and Bloor only from the stopped position.

Also safety has been created at a fraction of the cost. This is huge, no more track fires, suicides, accidents delays etc.
Sharon.
 
Stop and creep does not solve any of your basic math problems. Headway is fixed. Therefore, so is your line capacity. I can see if you want to propose stop and creep for every stop. But even then, I doubt you'd get much lower than 1:30.
 
subway safety said:
That's where the stop and creep would be beneficial for Yonge & Bloor only comes in.

This is what they did before the Russell Hill Accident at all 69 stations.

I don't know all the details for the Russell Hill Accident, ....over worked workers, new workers, under trained, perhaps one already suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah, more mindless blather... Post Traumatic Stress disorder???? From what? Those horrible suicides that happen hourly on the TTC? You'd think that would have come about during the investigation, but alas it didn't

Steve Munro, highly recommends the stop and creep method for Yonge & Bloor.

Lastly, with the benefit of atc with a larger scale strategy, mass transit has the capability to move more of the masses.

Right now, it isn't moving well, it isn't moving safe, and it is not moving confortably with the face plant thing.
Click to expand...

Show where Munro supports stop and creep... Provide the link

Again with the superfluous comments designed to evoke an emotional response. Face plant?!?!?!?

I obviously don't get paid for caring or working on an invention if I have wronge portions. As I said before the capacity thing, is the fun portion. The obviouse ideal is a double sided platform for Yonge and Bloor. This is too expensive and perhaps not feasible. I have created a successful solution for that. The other things..... are thinking and developing beyond. I still feel I have created good solutions for the beyond stuff, but once again, you will always run into another barrier. That's why the stop and creep thing, or have a exception to the rule stop and creep, while keeping a say 60 second headway just for Yonge and Bloor only from the stopped position.

Also safety has been created at a fraction of the cost. This is huge, no more track fires, suicides, accidents delays etc.
Sharon.
Click to expand...

You're all over the map. Your proposal doesn't need ATC, but hey if the TTC would be so kind to do it on their own accord look at what my system can do with it.

Sorry Sharon, I'm out.
 
I have an apology to make. I will not stand "too proud" to not admit a mistake.
I questioned my self even at the time. 103% or 203% , But it is twice the capacity. It is half the time. I did the math backward 50.75 divided by 25 equalls 2.03, than that might be 203% and since it is twice as much.

The true number is 103% capacity improvement, however, my math for the 1.346 Billion in new annual revenue potential remains the same.

One of the 4 different persons too even kind of got fooled. He said, shouldn't that be 100%, thot about it for a moment and than said, ya, that's right.

Twice as fast is easy to think 200%.

Back to the subject, it still is huge capacity improvement.
I have been told by Bombardier that dwell time can even be lower at around 60 seconds with automatic train control. Ofter a 90 second headway is referred to as a common achieveable headway withou train control, but with all the several variables, few transit can achieve the optimum 90 second headway, without atc.

Station skipping, or otherwise put, fewer stations over a longer stretch also means less variables. Every driver drives a little different from each other. A system is always as weak as your weakest link. Slower drivers, longer dwell times, different brakes abilities, swifter leaving the station, all of these variables as I understant the difference between the achieveable 90 second headway that can happen without atc, and that why with the ttc and others, the reality is ofter more like 110 130 , etc.
Once again, what ever the next barrier, you fix that one. I'm guessing the stop and creep would go a long way, or the added feature of atc, with station skipping strategies, which would also include the original need.....platform safety.
Sharon.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
Sorry Sharon, I'm out.
Click to expand...

I'm out too.

If you claim to know more than engineers with years (or even decades) of experience, you better know what you are talking about. When you can't understand the impact of headways on line capacity, or explain how you would attain the necessary headways and/or the costs of your plan, it's plainly clear you have no clue what you are talking about.

And you, madam, are proof, of why they don't allow anybody to just practice engineering without a license. If you can't work out a basic percentage, why would any organization trust you with billions of dollars worth of assets or expenditures and the lives of thousands of commuters?
 
kEiThZ said:
Even crowding won't be reduced. If headways remain the same, you have the same amount of people on the same amount of trains.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you do the math, crowding would be increased.

You've got the same number of passengers, the same train throughput, but now your passengers are traveling longer distances, on average (no one travels a shorter distance). More passenger kms with no increase in throughput means more passengers on any given train.

Yeah, that'll really sweeten the deal for the public at large.

(And with that, I'm out as well, pending anything of actual substance from the proposer, which I strongly suspect will not happen.)
 
One last try for the capacity misunderstanding:
(pls, pls, pls read this Sharon)

capacity is measured in people/time
'people' is limited by train volume, so capacity is really trains/time
notice: distance and/or speed are not involved in this measurement

trains/time can be inverted to time/train to give 'headway'
headway is just capacity inverted
that's it, that's capacity
less headway = more trains/time = higher capacity
notice: same equation, still no measures of distance or speed

it's all there in the unit
capacity = ppl/hr
it's not ppl*km/hr (that's something else)

the 'stop skipping' plan therefore can't (CAN NOT) affect capacity positively, as it does not address headway, and capacity IS headway (inverted)
whatever the rest of your secrets plans may include, please concede this point. you are irritating the transit geeks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top