|
|
| Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. (581357) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Mar 5 21:21:34 2008, in response to Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Wed Mar 5 21:07:02 2008. Your notes about jerk are much appreciated. As to the public liking a 5 mph/s acceleration rate, seated, maybe; I'm skeptical in standing situations where you might not be firmly attached to a pole, or you are weighted down with a heavy bag, or with kids...Even at half that acceleration rate, trust me as someone with quite above-average balance sense, if it's poured on immediately, it's uncomfortable. The key is to make it a smooth acceleration. With the short distance between stations in New York, it really doesn't make much difference. If an express only saves 30 seconds per skipped stop, what do you really expect to save accelerating say 25% faster than you do now? Well, at the 2.5 mphps taken as a constant, it'll take 12 seconds to hit 30 mph, which a train will usually hit in between stations. At twice that rate of acceleration, it takes six seconds less - half the time - to hit the same 30 mph, and on the other end, let's say there's another six seconds saved. 12 seconds saved per station on a route. On a route like the R, which eyeballing it, say, has 50 stops, that's 10 minutes less running time. Figure how many trains run on the R route, multiply that out, etc., and the numbers add up to a huge cumulative effect. Each leaky faucet does little damage on its own, but over many sinks, that's a ton of money and water down the drain. Note that this hypothetical didn't even increase the top speeds used. |
|
|
|