Quote:
Originally Posted by mykalberta
If they want more people standing why not put a bar in the middle so more people can hang on?
|
There are poles in the middle if you look at the picture. If you mean the very middle of the train where the circle is on the floor, you can't put a pole there because that is the articulation and it rotates as the train is going around bends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
That just means more jostling for seats and pushing/shoving when it comes to getting on the train. Excellent.
|
While there are less seats, passenger flow should be much better due to the more efficient arrangement, especially in the spaces between the doors. There are less seats and people's legs getting in the way of standees. On the older SD160s with the "knee-to-back" seating arrangement, movement through the aisles between doors is quite difficult because there isn't much space between the rows of seats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang
Despite my best efforts to find a link to something from the manufacturer, the city, or the media reports, all that I could find was the discussion on SSP that I was remembering:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show....php?p=4876855
Basically, the current SD-160 cars have a capacity of 60, and it was estimated that the new side-seating configuration would remove 4 or 8 seats per car and would obviously increase the standing capacity by more than that.
I have found that this type of configuration works well in other, bigger cities around the world. It is a good compromise between providing plenty of seats for off-peak times, and providing standing capacity for the sardine can during rush hour. |
Yes. There actually are not very many seats being removed, but the capacity will increase significantly. It's just a much more efficient design due to much less conflict between standees and either the seats or the legs of sitting passengers.