Bogush,
The thread was entitled ?Bogush concedes? and I believe you did; although I admit I find it difficult to understand your rambling posts.
Do I understand you are now saying that it is possible to convert a railway line to a bus lane and carry 40,000 seated passengers per hour on that lane?
If you are perhaps you could elaborate on the logistics of transporting 40,000 per hour on buses on a single lane.
I accept that a railway line could be converted into a bus lane so spare us a couple of pages of ?cut and paste? on that point.
C
|
|
|
I must be mad - asking Bogush to elaborate!
C
|
|
|
It's easy, you just run 800 buses an hour, each carrying 50 passengers.
That's one every 4.575 seconds, to save you doing the maths.
That replaces 50 trains, each carrying 800 passengers.
That's one every 72 seconds, to save you doing the maths.
The plan fails on the fact that to maintain the schedules you have to load and unload the buses and clear the bus stops in that same 4.575 seconds and load and unload the trains and clear the terminals in one minute twelve seconds.
Conclusion, catch that passing pig.
|
|
|
Ahhhhhhh
Funny you should mention that.................
But I do recall the originators post had something about bus stations being able to turn round passengers better (faster) than railway stations.
I'd try and find it again, and cut and paaaaAAArrrghhhhhhhh...........
|
|
|
Brian,
Spot on - which was the question I posed to Bogush in the original thread - I used the term 'dismount passengers'.
You must be careful using logic with Bogush ? it?s not his style.
C
|
Cardew wrote:
>
> Brian,
> Spot on - which was the question I posed to Bogush in the
> original thread - I used the term 'dismount passengers'.
>
> You must be careful using logic with Bogush ? it?s not his
> style.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I had been assuming you'd been following the links back to the original thread.
Was that too logical?
|
|
|
|
|
So you do wan't me to cut and paaaaarrgggggggg
|
|
|
|
I did give you the reference which should explain all you ever wanted to know about mounting, if that's what turns you on!;-)
|
|
I say, chaps, try to keep it clean.
|
|
|
|
|
Why not answer the question on the logistics.
|
|
|
Errrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmm
Because if you'd read any of the related threads you might have spotted that I'd pointed out that I'd pinched (I'm informed that I should have used the term "plagiarised" so that the intellectuals would understand) a post that I though (some) others might find interesting.
I have no idea about the "logistics".
However I have given a reference back to the original document quoted, where, I imagine, all will be explained.
PS If we were to descent from our Ivory Towers into the Real World we might observe that an hourly rate of transportation does not equate to an actual daily passenger throughput: not for buses, neither for trains.
And just as a train station might struggle with disgorging a trainload of passengers every 72 seconds all day every day, I would be the last person to be surprised to find that a bus station would struggle to cope with dismounting a bus load of passengers every 4.5 seconds. Never mind six turning up at once. Logistically speaking.
Which is probably why it's better to take the station out of the equation.
And go by car if your journey's at all far!;-)
|
|
|
The said "And go by car if your journey's at all far"
I think that he has come up with something useful.
Make that "Go by car if the journey's far" and you have the perfect ripost to the "Let the train take the strain" advert.
|
|
|
Bogush,
For once I agree with your post above.
I simply question then why you cut and pasted the '40,000/hour' contribution to support your argument, yet now appear to be explaining why it makes no sense.
Whilst many of us support some strands of your pro-motorist stance, you alienate by using this forum for a series anti-establishment rants and overwhelming us with extracts from anything that vaguely supports your
case(s).
In deference to MBRM perhaps we should leave it there.
C
|
|
|
I'll brief then:
> Do I understand you are now saying that it is possible to convert a railway line to a bus lane and carry 40,000 seated passengers per hour on that lane?
Yes
> If you are perhaps you could elaborate on the logistics of transporting 40,000 per hour on buses on a single lane.
No, but Brian can, and did, above.
And the buses can keep double a safe two second gap between them by the looks of it.
> Why not answer the question on the logistics. (dismount passengers).
They clearly must dismount somewhere, somehow.
As pointed out before, your answer is likely to be here:
Dalgleish, A. 1993. The Truth About Transport
|
|
|
In the days of steam they used to have scoops which could pick up water from a trough without the train slowing down.
Maybe they could do the same for passengers? ;-)
|
|
|
Mister Gear,
Also for the Royal Mail.
Bogush,
I'll leave you to your fantasy of 40,000/hour in a bus lane, it has similar credibility to your other theories. Should also work for the M4 Bus Lane that you castigated; the planners obviously didn't listen to
C
|
|
|
Cardew, this is not a complicated concept, but obviously stretches some too far.
So let's try one more time:
It is not my post: it is something I lifted from another forum because I thought some might find it interesting.
It is not my theory.
If you want more info on it see "The Truth About Transport".
If you want to argue the point see A. Dalgleish.
However if you want to argue about any of my incredible theories feel free to let me know which ones.
|
|
|
Bogush,
So let's try THIS one more time.
Why post it if it was not in support of a point you were making? (converting railway lines to bus lanes)
C
|
|
|
Errrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmm
MY point was:
"Whilst personally I believe that we should have a strategic rail (and canal) network, there are strong economic and environmental arguments for tarmacing over the rail-roads."
People asked me what they were.
So as a courtesy I pinched (plagiarised, if you prefer) some posts I'd come across on a transport forum.
Then *I* was asked justify some figures in one of the plagiarised posts
So I, more than once, posted the reference it supposedly came from.
Now I'm being asked to justify giving people information on someone else's post on another forum which didn't support the point I was making.
I've hear of clutching at straws, but can't ANY of my opponents come up with ANY arguments against ANY of MY points?
|
|
|
