h a l f b a k e r yAssume a hemispherical cow.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Subway trains are crowded, and it's often a
hassle to get on and off them. I hate
pushing down old ladies and all, but
sometimes it's just necessary. I suggest
that we move all the seats to one side of
the carso that there would be four seats
and then a walkway rather than two seats,
walkway,
two seats. Then make the other
side of the train into what is essentially a
garage door using hydraulics or
pneumatics or just electricity.(only when
the train is stationary, for the smartasses
out there). the floor of the train would be
very the same height as the platform, and
come within a centimetre or so of it. add
warning signs about watching your head
and feet, and now it's really easy to get on
and off. It would kinda suck to have to
make three people move in order to get
off, but overall it would be easier.
Subway Doorwalls
http://www.halfbake.../Subway_20Doorwalls
Thanks [schematics] [Worldgineer, Oct 05 2004]
Subways, Metros & Tubes call them what you like
http://www.suite101...n_underground/78234
Here are some stats for the various Mass rapid transports world wide. [PainOCommonSense, Oct 05 2004]
[link]
|
| |
Picturing the door closing on the carriage when too many people have boarded... |
|
| |
It also sound like you're gonna lose the seats on one side of your car... |
|
| |
why does it sound that way? I'm just
moving them over. |
|
| |
Balance would be a huge issue. If a bunch of nincompoops wanting a look at a nudie beach can flip a pleasure barge, don't you figure 40 fat New Yorkers have a huge upper hand over a pansy little subway car? |
|
| |
Also, not all subway entrances and exits, even on the same line, are on the same side of the train. |
|
| |
Making the doors wider seems like a better idea. |
|
| |
a train's "fulcrum" (under optimal
circumstances, it doesn't have a
fulcrum) would be as wide as the tracks,
and in order to get it to tip onto one rail
you'd have to attach weight far out to
one side. conclusion: trains are
relatively stable. Boats that are not
catamarans do not operate on the same
principle. conclusion: unless it's a
freighter or ferry or tugboat or
something huge, trains are more stable
than boats. |
|
| |
also, couldn't we just move all the stops
to one side of the track (right or left, as
there would be even more problems if it
were east and west) |
|
| |
[schematics] But what about a 4 track station.
\Platform 1/
===================up1
===================up2
/Platform 2\
\Platform 3/
===================down1
===================down2
/Platform 4\
any train in the up direction, could usually be re-routed to either of platforms 1 and 2. This would make the moving of "all the stops to one side of the track" impossible without re-designing and re-laying the track. |
|
| |
These would look like giant bread bins - I imagine commuters in the Metro seeing them roll open and then throwing showers of baguettes. So, let me also toss pastry. bun! |
|
| |
Trains used in the south east of England have one door in between each pair of rows of seats. About the only disadvantage is that you have to push past the knees of the people nearest the door. For mass transit like this, more access automatically = good... I like this idea. Maybe the bottom foot or so of the door could open down onto the platform as an access ramp? Just find a way not to land on people's toes... |
|
| |
I wouldn't worry too much about balance... train carriages weigh forty tonnes each, rolling on a five foot wide wheelbase. To turn it over, you'd need the equivalent of forty tonnes, hung two and a half feet out from the side of the train (or a hundred tonnes at one foot, or twenty tonnes at five feet). That's a lot of porky commuters... |
|
| |
Can't we fit a door like this to each side of the train? I don't see why access should be limited to one side... |
|
| |
I was going to add a modification, but while fleshing it out I'm afraid it's strayed a bit from your idea. I'm going to create a new, similar idea... |
|
| |
I guess the four track thing does screw
things up. We don't have that system in
Edmonton (Canada, not Scotland, not
England, not the one in the states) |
|
| |
My biggest problem was the weight balance. One thing you may not be realizing is that standard rails, and by necessity, train wheels, are all 4 feet, 8.5 inches wide...the wheel is the fulcrum. And there's not a subway car in the world that doesn't have seats outside of the vertical line created by the wheels. |
|
| |
The four-track system, though, does solve my other problem. |
|
| |
the wheel is only the fulcrum if your
train already has ridiculous balance
problems. it would take a lot of weight
to tip a trains sideway. putting a
maximum occupancy on each car would
be an easy and possibly uneccessary ( I
can't spell) prevention. |
|
| |
The obvious answer to all this is to invent the energizer, and beam passengers on and off the trains. |
|
| |
What happens at the end of the line? The whole train would need to be turned round so that the doors faced the correct side on the way back. You'd need a turntable a quarter mile wide! |
|
| |
okay granted I'm new here and my degree is in CS not engineering, but what if you put all the seats in the middle like so :
/ doors /
DDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDD
/ \
That way balance problem is solved, as is the oncomming and offgoing boarding problem??? |
|
| |
The problem is the number of trains, not the speed of loading. When the Tube in London is busy the whole station is as packed as it is humanly possible to get. Get a couple of empty trains in and the place could be emptied in minutes. These door issues are irrlevant compared to the general issue of the number of carriages & trains & signalling to stop them bashing into each other on the same lines. If you could get empty trains in quick enough all the other problems are minor. |
|
| |
if you want people to be able to enter or exit easily just remove the side walls, warning may result in more accidents. |
|
| |
And less passengers means less
crowding! that's brilliant! Except,... No. |
|
| |
what happens when you pull into a busy station and all the ppl on the platform are standing 1' from the train? |
|
| |
presumably the doors roll upwards on to the top rather than a delorian (nose whacking) gull wing. |
|
| |
I guess i should have been more clear. It would roll up the door. |
|
| |
Actually, speed of embarkation and debarkation is an issue at some Tube stations. The peak service rate of 30 trains/hour is not attained during the absolute busiest parts of rush hour because the trains take longer to load and unload than they do at slightly-less-busy times. |
|
| |
The entire top of the train should be
open. Then, when the train gets to the
station, it just tips over in the direction
of the platform and people can just
walk out of the 'top' of the train. |
|
| |
In fact, why feed the people like a grain hopper - they're dropped in from the top at the starting station, and dropped out of the bottom at the end. |
|
| |
The Moscow Tube seems to use the same door system as the UK and have bigger train compartments (more people) and something like three times the number of people travelling on it with using less stations and it seems to get by fine without these doors. They run a train pretty much every 40 seconds at rush hour which keeps the crowds down so there is no crush at the doors. The problem I tell you is with the lines, signaling and the number of trains. If they ran regular enough then they wouldn't have the issues with backlog, clearing crowds at peak times. |
|
| |
what about instead of the whole side of the train raising, it could split in half horizontally, the bottom half becoming a ramp to cover the gap. just a thought. |
|
| |