|
|
| Re: Underbuilt IND? (1140111) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Feb 16 22:52:43 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Outside the Box on Thu Feb 16 12:45:49 2012. More frequent service levels will proportionately reduce the number of passengers in each car, the number of passengers waiting on the platforms and the number of passengers crossing the door threshold at each stop.It's very difficult to extrapolate current dwell times at selected stations with what would be expected at 40 tph. The current headway variability with 26 and 30 tph is a big problem. Another reason for extended loading times is the method used to determine when to close doors. The C/O has to wait for all the doors to be clear before closing them. A better strategy would be for doors to close individually, when they are clear of passengers. The R142's supposedly have a feature whereby a closing door would automatically re-open, if a passenger were stuck. They don't use this feature for fear that passengers would keep doors open indefinitely. It would result in shorter not longer loading times, if it were used. Another reason for extended loading times is passenger car design that encourages passengers to remain in the doorways. The BMT standards were designed so that passengers holding onto poles would not block the doorways. The doorways were also substantially wider to give passengers a pole to hang onto but still give passengers a clear shot to get on and off. Despite having only 3 doors per side, the Standards did not have excessive loading times with crush loads. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|