Bangkok Administration To Demolish Saphan Taksin Station, Put In Moving Walkways

[utalkin2me]

I notice the sukhumvit trains headed east at siam seem to come with almost ridiculous frequency after about 4. Less than a minute between trains sometimes (yes I am bored so I time it). I wonder if this is a direct result of the bottleneck? Gotta get passengers off the siam platform somehow, and the bottleneck seems it will really slow the silom line down.

Edited May 15, 2013 by utalkin2me

[Lakegeneve]

I notice the sukhumvit trains headed east at siam seem to come with almost ridiculous frequency after about 4. Less than a minute between trains sometimes (yes I am bored so I time it). I wonder if this is a direct result of the bottleneck? Gotta get passengers off the siam platform somehow, and the bottleneck seems it will really slow the silom line down.

The headway for the SUk during peak should still be 2:20. However, sometimes it is a little less due to a prior service being late and services attempting to catch up a little. It might seem less than a minute but if you time it at exactly the same point of the train I doubt that it would ever be less than 1:30-1:45 let alone 1:00! (People view a train depart the platform while another approaches not far away so the perspective is askew).

It is very rare for any metro to do less than 1:30, HK & a few others do a minimum 1:30 on some lines during peak. Less than that becomes too dangerous. Longer rolling stock or rolling stock with more doors will be the preferable options rather than reducing the headway under 1:30.

Not sure that I would ride any metro doing less than a 1:00 headways.....

[Will2011]

Just to clarify, as I pass by Saphan Taksin EVERY DAY, the trains stop before the station (on the bridge and between Surasak and Saphan) due to the bottleneck. If there was an appropriate computerized system, trains wouldn't need to stop as they wouldn't cross the bottleneck at the same time. As a result, it would avoid demolition and its high costs. The second advantage would be for commuters as they would keep using this relatively requested destination. Not to mention that it appears to be non-cognitive approach to demolish something that just has been built.

I hope it helps understand the concept.

I don't think you have any idea what the problem actually is.

The bottleneck isn't just the single point where the tracks join. It's the whole section of track from where they join on one side, through the platform, to the section where the tracks separate on the other side.

They want to increase the frequency of trains, but since it takes several minutes for a train to go onto the single track, stop at the station to let passengers on and off, and then continue out of the way, it makes it difficult to increase the frequency of trains.

If the trains are running every 4 minutes and it takes more than 4 minutes for a train to pass from one side of the station, stop at the platform, and then pass to the other side of the station, a computerised system can't get rid of the bottleneck. The only thing that can get rid of the bottleneck (on a single track platform) is to spend less time dropping off/picking up passengers.

Prior to the WWY ext opening in May 2009 the peak headway on the Silom line was 2:40. (On Suk line it was 2:20). That allowed sufficient dwell time at S5 for the driver.

In the weeks after the opening even with the split platform modality (west end for WWY, east end for Silom) the BTS quickly discovered that it could not keep anything to schedule - remember this was still pre CNR 4 car trains on the Silom line. A new timetable came out in late June/early July which made the headway 5 mins all day up until 10pm. This gave some flexibility.

It doesn't matter if you have 'Japanese computerised signalling' or 'some new alien signaling technology' - there are physical parameters at play.(Unless you can change the time space continuum!)

You need a dwell time at the station for pax to dismebark and embark. Having 10 door rolling stock could reduce that - as the Yamanote (Circle) line in Tokyo does - as it reduces the dwell time but we are stuck with 4 door rolling stock. The trains can only travel at a low speed in this zone. You also need a safe time-frame for each train to clear the turnout in case of sudden stoppage or delay to avoid potential for accidents. You might be able to shave a few seconds here and there but I doubt that you can reduce the required time significantly.

If you can refer to Japanese computerised technology being used anywhere in the world where a single track platform is used for bi-directional trains you might have some substance to your suggestion. The fact is that I am only aware of one such single track platform being used on a commuter line in Germany. I don't know of any metro example anywhere in the world - historically yes.

As the whole extension will open by the end of the year, and as pax rates increase and rolling stock length increase in years to come this bottleneck will only get worse. Any delay has a domino effect on the whole line.

Not to mention that a precious amount of time is waisted at WWY S9 station as the driver switches back and forth to drive the train inbound/outbound. And we can say that those guys are not really nervous as they take their time to switch. In addition, I have seen two drivers for trains from WWY to Talat Phlu S10 to avoid switching. So to grab more time, why wouldnt they have two drivers for Silom line S1 to S9? That would dramatically reduce stoppage at WWY and allow crossing the one line Saphan Taskin without stopping trains.

Another way to look at this issue is maybe to enlarge one way of the road for cars. Maybe that would need to build a bridge extension. By doing so, they might be able to build another train line on the current road so that they wouldn't need to demolish the station.

[utalkin2me]

I notice the sukhumvit trains headed east at siam seem to come with almost ridiculous frequency after about 4. Less than a minute between trains sometimes (yes I am bored so I time it). I wonder if this is a direct result of the bottleneck? Gotta get passengers off the siam platform somehow, and the bottleneck seems it will really slow the silom line down.

The headway for the SUk during peak should still be 2:20. However, sometimes it is a little less due to a prior service being late and services attempting to catch up a little. It might seem less than a minute but if you time it at exactly the same point of the train I doubt that it would ever be less than 1:30-1:45 let alone 1:00! (People view a train depart the platform while another approaches not far away so the perspective is askew).

It is very rare for any metro to do less than 1:30, HK & a few others do a minimum 1:30 on some lines during peak. Less than that becomes too dangerous. Longer rolling stock or rolling stock with more doors will be the preferable options rather than reducing the headway under 1:30.

Not sure that I would ride any metro doing less than a 1:00 headways.....

Maybe you should not ride the suk line east from siam then? The fast trains do stall at chit lom, ploen chit etc... thereafter normally. It is so funny though, on the trains that come REALLY early like that, there is nobody on them for one, and two... nobody gets on because they are so close to the train in front. This was all supposed to be my little secret though

Anyway....I guarantee you, 100%, that is it under a minute many times. Approximately the tail of the train passes me, to the head of the next one arriving. I am happy to have a better understanding about ANYTHING BTS than you I really have actually had a stopwatch out. Anyway.... trusting posters is a dubious thing, I know. Sit there at 430 and time a few, if you get one under 60 sec, you owe me a pitcher

Edited May 17, 2013 by utalkin2me

[DiNiro]

Put the BTS station across the river and suspend a moving sidewalk back over the river to the Saphan Taksin area.

A walkway like that would be a tourist attraction and both sides of the river will have connections.

[whybother]

Put the BTS station across the river and suspend a moving sidewalk back over the river to the Saphan Taksin area.

A walkway like that would be a tourist attraction and both sides of the river will have connections.

The other side has the same issue with space as the current position. http://maps.google.com/?ll=13.719631,100.510332&spn=0.001514,0.002642&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=13.719631,100.510332&panoid=LhslDkIuc-nGZltbMf1LrA&cbp=12,104.31,,0,0

[Lakegeneve]

I notice the sukhumvit trains headed east at siam seem to come with almost ridiculous frequency after about 4. Less than a minute between trains sometimes (yes I am bored so I time it). I wonder if this is a direct result of the bottleneck? Gotta get passengers off the siam platform somehow, and the bottleneck seems it will really slow the silom line down.

The headway for the SUk during peak should still be 2:20. However, sometimes it is a little less due to a prior service being late and services attempting to catch up a little. It might seem less than a minute but if you time it at exactly the same point of the train I doubt that it would ever be less than 1:30-1:45 let alone 1:00! (People view a train depart the platform while another approaches not far away so the perspective is askew).

It is very rare for any metro to do less than 1:30, HK & a few others do a minimum 1:30 on some lines during peak. Less than that becomes too dangerous. Longer rolling stock or rolling stock with more doors will be the preferable options rather than reducing the headway under 1:30.

Not sure that I would ride any metro doing less than a 1:00 headways.....

Maybe you should not ride the suk line east from siam then? The fast trains do stall at chit lom, ploen chit etc... thereafter normally. It is so funny though, on the trains that come REALLY early like that, there is nobody on them for one, and two... nobody gets on because they are so close to the train in front. This was all supposed to be my little secret though

Anyway....I guarantee you, 100%, that is it under a minute many times. Approximately the tail of the train passes me, to the head of the next one arriving. I am happy to have a better understanding about ANYTHING BTS than you I really have actually had a stopwatch out. Anyway.... trusting posters is a dubious thing, I know. Sit there at 430 and time a few, if you get one under 60 sec, you owe me a pitcher

You just answered yourself why your timing is unreliable. Your not timing it from the same point and you are "approximately" as you state. I do ride it daily including the time you indicate. Seen plenty of delays on the line leading to changes in operating speeds and headways. However, I'll trust you when you can time a headway correctly.

And as you obviously want to prove something perhaps time 30-60 mins worth of services and give us the answers, it will be interesting. (Also, you need to understand the difference in headway times between services operating at normal speed and one which say has stopped at a signal prior to a station due to delays up the line or of the previous service and once cleared, is then allowed to enter a station at a very, very slow speed as the previous service has departs the station)

Then, if you do get under 1:00 at normal operating speeds, we can tell the BTS as they are breaching minimum operating safety standards.

[Lakegeneve]

Just to clarify, as I pass by Saphan Taksin EVERY DAY, the trains stop before the station (on the bridge and between Surasak and Saphan) due to the bottleneck. If there was an appropriate computerized system, trains wouldn't need to stop as they wouldn't cross the bottleneck at the same time. As a result, it would avoid demolition and its high costs. The second advantage would be for commuters as they would keep using this relatively requested destination. Not to mention that it appears to be non-cognitive approach to demolish something that just has been built.

I hope it helps understand the concept.

I don't think you have any idea what the problem actually is.

The bottleneck isn't just the single point where the tracks join. It's the whole section of track from where they join on one side, through the platform, to the section where the tracks separate on the other side.

They want to increase the frequency of trains, but since it takes several minutes for a train to go onto the single track, stop at the station to let passengers on and off, and then continue out of the way, it makes it difficult to increase the frequency of trains.

If the trains are running every 4 minutes and it takes more than 4 minutes for a train to pass from one side of the station, stop at the platform, and then pass to the other side of the station, a computerised system can't get rid of the bottleneck. The only thing that can get rid of the bottleneck (on a single track platform) is to spend less time dropping off/picking up passengers.

Prior to the WWY ext opening in May 2009 the peak headway on the Silom line was 2:40. (On Suk line it was 2:20). That allowed sufficient dwell time at S5 for the driver.

In the weeks after the opening even with the split platform modality (west end for WWY, east end for Silom) the BTS quickly discovered that it could not keep anything to schedule - remember this was still pre CNR 4 car trains on the Silom line. A new timetable came out in late June/early July which made the headway 5 mins all day up until 10pm. This gave some flexibility.

It doesn't matter if you have 'Japanese computerised signalling' or 'some new alien signaling technology' - there are physical parameters at play.(Unless you can change the time space continuum!)

You need a dwell time at the station for pax to dismebark and embark. Having 10 door rolling stock could reduce that - as the Yamanote (Circle) line in Tokyo does - as it reduces the dwell time but we are stuck with 4 door rolling stock. The trains can only travel at a low speed in this zone. You also need a safe time-frame for each train to clear the turnout in case of sudden stoppage or delay to avoid potential for accidents. You might be able to shave a few seconds here and there but I doubt that you can reduce the required time significantly.

If you can refer to Japanese computerised technology being used anywhere in the world where a single track platform is used for bi-directional trains you might have some substance to your suggestion. The fact is that I am only aware of one such single track platform being used on a commuter line in Germany. I don't know of any metro example anywhere in the world - historically yes.

As the whole extension will open by the end of the year, and as pax rates increase and rolling stock length increase in years to come this bottleneck will only get worse. Any delay has a domino effect on the whole line.

Not to mention that a precious amount of time is waisted at WWY S9 station as the driver switches back and forth to drive the train inbound/outbound. And we can say that those guys are not really nervous as they take their time to switch. In addition, I have seen two drivers for trains from WWY to Talat Phlu S10 to avoid switching. So to grab more time, why wouldnt they have two drivers for Silom line S1 to S9? That would dramatically reduce stoppage at WWY and allow crossing the one line Saphan Taskin without stopping trains.

Another way to look at this issue is maybe to enlarge one way of the road for cars. Maybe that would need to build a bridge extension. By doing so, they might be able to build another train line on the current road so that they wouldn't need to demolish the station.

Not sure that 2 drivers from Siam to WWY would "dramatically reduce stoppage" times. What is the turn around time I wonder ? 60-90 secs? It would save some time which is true. The reason for two drivers from WWY to TP is that it is 6 car operations and operating on a single track thus the BTS really needs to do this as the headway for the service is already 9mins +.

Really, with the number of new bridges that have been built over the river and the 5 more that are planned, the outer lanes of the 3 lane Taksin bridge - or lanes closest to the station should be closed so that the station can be expanded. Thereafter, in years to come a retro engineering of the bridge could be implemented. The patent consequence would be to create a bottleneck but that is already the reality there anyway. We should be encouraging people to take metros rather than vehicles. (The other more realistic option is the one I previously posted.)

The priority should be mass transit over private vehicles instead of vice versa but of course that can't be done as it would create a riot.

[wellred]

When is it getting knocked down, this year?

[utalkin2me]

I notice the sukhumvit trains headed east at siam seem to come with almost ridiculous frequency after about 4. Less than a minute between trains sometimes (yes I am bored so I time it). I wonder if this is a direct result of the bottleneck? Gotta get passengers off the siam platform somehow, and the bottleneck seems it will really slow the silom line down.

The headway for the SUk during peak should still be 2:20. However, sometimes it is a little less due to a prior service being late and services attempting to catch up a little. It might seem less than a minute but if you time it at exactly the same point of the train I doubt that it would ever be less than 1:30-1:45 let alone 1:00! (People view a train depart the platform while another approaches not far away so the perspective is askew).

It is very rare for any metro to do less than 1:30, HK & a few others do a minimum 1:30 on some lines during peak. Less than that becomes too dangerous. Longer rolling stock or rolling stock with more doors will be the preferable options rather than reducing the headway under 1:30.

Not sure that I would ride any metro doing less than a 1:00 headways.....

Maybe you should not ride the suk line east from siam then? The fast trains do stall at chit lom, ploen chit etc... thereafter normally. It is so funny though, on the trains that come REALLY early like that, there is nobody on them for one, and two... nobody gets on because they are so close to the train in front. This was all supposed to be my little secret though

Anyway....I guarantee you, 100%, that is it under a minute many times. Approximately the tail of the train passes me, to the head of the next one arriving. I am happy to have a better understanding about ANYTHING BTS than you I really have actually had a stopwatch out. Anyway.... trusting posters is a dubious thing, I know. Sit there at 430 and time a few, if you get one under 60 sec, you owe me a pitcher

You just answered yourself why your timing is unreliable. Your not timing it from the same point and you are "approximately" as you state. I do ride it daily including the time you indicate. Seen plenty of delays on the line leading to changes in operating speeds and headways. However, I'll trust you when you can time a headway correctly.

And as you obviously want to prove something perhaps time 30-60 mins worth of services and give us the answers, it will be interesting. (Also, you need to understand the difference in headway times between services operating at normal speed and one which say has stopped at a signal prior to a station due to delays up the line or of the previous service and once cleared, is then allowed to enter a station at a very, very slow speed as the previous service has departs the station)

Then, if you do get under 1:00 at normal operating speeds, we can tell the BTS as they are breaching minimum operating safety standards.

Maybe I skimmed your middle post there. Point was, if you want to wait for the next train at siam at that time, the time you have to wait for the next train starting from when the initial train leaves is many times less than a minute. This is the time that seems much more pertinent for just a simple old laymen like me I have even had this time be ~45 seconds... I have no idea what that translates to in headway time, don't care either to be honest. I also wondered if this could be a result of needing to clear the platform, but you say it should be 2:20, so it seems it is just a variance without reason. i would actually think there is a reason to these close trailing trains though. It can be like a snowball effect..... once a train gets a little behind, it will then pick up more passengers than the one behind it, delaying it more, all culminating at siam perhaps (at least imo). The nice thing is, as I said, the trains I get on when I am choosy normally don't pick up nearly as many people after leaving siam b/c they are relatively close to the train in front of them.

Edited May 19, 2013 by utalkin2me

[Will2011]

So, do we agree that two drivers would be sufficient to avoid train stoppage at Saphan Taksin and keep that station as it is?

Another alternative, which would be my 4th, is to allocate trains during rush hours, not stopping at Saphan Taksin station every time, just like MRT trains do for peak hours. And it works fine.

Really, there are so many possible alternatives for those who really are motivated, care about the station and its commuters as well as for those who want to save money!

[whybother]

So, do we agree that two drivers would be sufficient to avoid train stoppage at Saphan Taksin and keep that station as it is?

Another alternative, which would be my 4th, is to allocate trains during rush hours, not stopping at Saphan Taksin station every time, just like MRT trains do for peak hours. And it works fine.

Really, there are so many possible alternatives for those who really are motivated, care about the station and its commuters as well as for those who want to save money!

I don't agree. Two drivers won't make the train go through Saphan Taksin station any quicker than now.

And it isn't just the time that a train spends at the station that is the issue. The train has to wait where the tracks join until the one going in the opposite direction has clearly passed. It then needs to go onto the single track, stop at the station to unload and load passengers, and then it has to clear where the tracks join/separate at the other side.

The train passing through the station obviously takes longer than the time between trains going in the other direction, otherwise there wouldn't be a bottleneck.

[Will2011]

So, do we agree that two drivers would be sufficient to avoid train stoppage at Saphan Taksin and keep that station as it is?

Another alternative, which would be my 4th, is to allocate trains during rush hours, not stopping at Saphan Taksin station every time, just like MRT trains do for peak hours. And it works fine.

Really, there are so many possible alternatives for those who really are motivated, care about the station and its commuters as well as for those who want to save money!

I don't agree. Two drivers won't make the train go through Saphan Taksin station any quicker than now.

And it isn't just the time that a train spends at the station that is the issue. The train has to wait where the tracks join until the one going in the opposite direction has clearly passed. It then needs to go onto the single track, stop at the station to unload and load passengers, and then it has to clear where the tracks join/separate at the other side.

The train passing through the station obviously takes longer than the time between trains going in the other direction, otherwise there wouldn't be a bottleneck.

While my comment wasn't directed to you, to sum up, Lakegeneve affirmed that two drivers will save time about "60-90"s. However, you, whybother, still states that it will not make trains any quicker. So would that make them slow down according to you?

I know we are in Thailand aka Mai Dai Land and excuse Land, where you seem to be well integrated based on your inputs, but that doesn't mean you have to contradict everybody without supporting evidences. So, I would say why even bother posting?!

[whybother]

While my comment wasn't directed to you, to sum up, Lakegeneve affirmed that two drivers will save time about "60-90"s. However, you, whybother, still states that it will not make trains any quicker. So would that make them slow down according to you?

I know we are in Thailand aka Mai Dai Land and excuse Land, where you seem to be well integrated based on your inputs, but that doesn't mean you have to contradict everybody without supporting evidences. So, I would say why even bother posting?!

Supporting evidence? Can you please tell me how two drivers will speed up the train going THROUGH Saphan Taksin? That is where the problem is, not at WWY.

Lakegeneve was talking about saving time turning the train around at the last station, WWY.

Having trains turn around faster at WWY won't make the trains go through Saphan Taksin any quicker. With trains turning around quicker at WWY, they will still come to the bottle neck at Saphan Taksin. To be able to stop the bottle neck at Saphan Taksin, the trains need to go through quicker AT Saphan Thaksin.

[Will2011]

While my comment wasn't directed to you, to sum up, Lakegeneve affirmed that two drivers will save time about "60-90"s. However, you, whybother, still states that it will not make trains any quicker. So would that make them slow down according to you?

I know we are in Thailand aka Mai Dai Land and excuse Land, where you seem to be well integrated based on your inputs, but that doesn't mean you have to contradict everybody without supporting evidences. So, I would say why even bother posting?!

Supporting evidence? Can you please tell me how two drivers will speed up the train going THROUGH Saphan Taksin? That is where the problem is, not at WWY.

Lakegeneve was talking about saving time turning the train around at the last station, WWY.

Having trains turn around faster at WWY won't make the trains go through Saphan Taksin any quicker. With trains turning around quicker at WWY, they will still come to the bottle neck at Saphan Taksin. To be able to stop the bottle neck at Saphan Taksin, the trains need to go through quicker AT Saphan Thaksin.

First, I'd suggest you read my earlier posts so that you can understand the outline.

The following is the answer to your question, which I mentioned its content. Two drivers reduce train stoppages at WWY station around maybe 60 to 90s on the entire line. For example, if the outbound line is faster than the inbound train, it will be able to go through Saphan Taksin station without meeting the other train coming from the opposite direction at the bottleneck. By doing so, Saphan Taksin station doesn't need to be demolished and commuters will still enjoy the station.

Please feel free to ask any question if you don't understand my posts.

[whybother]

First, I'd suggest you read my earlier posts so that you can understand the outline.

The following is the answer to your question, which I mentioned its content. Two drivers reduce train stoppages at WWY station around maybe 60 to 90s on the entire line. For example, if the outbound line is faster than the inbound train, it will be able to go through Saphan Taksin station without meeting the other train coming from the opposite direction at the bottleneck. By doing so, Saphan Taksin station doesn't need to be demolished and commuters will still enjoy the station.

Please feel free to ask any question if you don't understand my posts.

.

If the trains (inbound or outbound) are running every 2 minutes, and it takes longer than 2 minutes for a train to go from one side of the station, stop at the station, and get to the other side of the station, please tell me how making a faster turn around will make any difference, let alone make the train get through the station faster.

If it takes 3 minutes for a train to get through the station (from the connection on one side to the connection on the other), it is a physical impossibility for all the trains to run less than 3 minutes apart.

For example:

- Outbound 1 (O1) waits on the north side of the station for an inbound train (I1) to pass.

- I1 passes the track connection, so O1 can continue into the station, stop and let passengers off and on, and then continue to the south side of the station and pass the track connection.

- Another inbound train (I2) can then start it's pass through the station.

- Once I2 is through, then another outbound train (O2) can pass through the station.

The time between O1 and O2 and the time between I1 and I2 CAN NOT be less than the time it takes for the trains to pass through the station.

If you can get the time to be less than the time it takes to get through the station, you've invented yourself a ghost train, because the trains will be passing through each other.

It is irrelevant how fast the trains turn around at the other end, except that the faster they turn around, the more likely they are to bottle neck around Saphan Taksin.

Edited May 20, 2013 by whybother

[Will2011]

First, I'd suggest you read my earlier posts so that you can understand the outline.

The following is the answer to your question, which I mentioned its content. Two drivers reduce train stoppages at WWY station around maybe 60 to 90s on the entire line. For example, if the outbound line is faster than the inbound train, it will be able to go through Saphan Taksin station without meeting the other train coming from the opposite direction at the bottleneck. By doing so, Saphan Taksin station doesn't need to be demolished and commuters will still enjoy the station.

Please feel free to ask any question if you don't understand my posts.

.

If the trains (inbound or outbound) are running every 2 minutes, and it takes longer than 2 minutes for a train to go from one side of the station, stop at the station, and get to the other side of the station, please tell me how making a faster turn around will make any difference, let alone make the train get through the station faster.

If it takes 3 minutes for a train to get through the station (from the connection on one side to the connection on the other), it is a physical impossibility for all the trains to run less than 3 minutes apart.

For example:

- Outbound 1 (O1) waits on the north side of the station for an inbound train (I1) to pass.

- I1 passes the track connection, so O1 can continue into the station, stop and let passengers off and on, and then continue to the south side of the station and pass the track connection.

- Another inbound train (I2) can then start it's pass through the station.

- Once I2 is through, then another outbound train (O2) can pass through the station.

The time between O1 and O2 and the time between I1 and I2 CAN NOT be less than the time it takes for the trains to pass through the station.

If you can get the time to be less than the time it takes to get through the station, you've invented yourself a ghost train, because the trains will be passing through each other.

It is irrelevant how fast the trains turn around at the other end, except that the faster they turn around, the more likely they are to bottle neck around Saphan Taksin.

Hi,

So for the sake of accuracy, I checked the time trains depart from Surasak and go through Saphan Taskin Station up to the 2 rail lines. In a similar fashion, I also checked timing from Krungthonburi to well beyond Saphan Taksin 2 lines. Please note that I was generous as i calculated time well beyond both back to 2 lines as just mentioned.

Outbound and Inbound lines took both around 90s to go through, including stopping of course.

So, I'm not sure how you got 2 minutes, but it only takes 90s. As a result, it appears that my solution with two drivers is accurate and allows trains every 2min without any stoppage at the bottleneck.

Spread the word!

[whybother]

First, I'd suggest you read my earlier posts so that you can understand the outline.

The following is the answer to your question, which I mentioned its content. Two drivers reduce train stoppages at WWY station around maybe 60 to 90s on the entire line. For example, if the outbound line is faster than the inbound train, it will be able to go through Saphan Taksin station without meeting the other train coming from the opposite direction at the bottleneck. By doing so, Saphan Taksin station doesn't need to be demolished and commuters will still enjoy the station.

Please feel free to ask any question if you don't understand my posts.

.

If the trains (inbound or outbound) are running every 2 minutes, and it takes longer than 2 minutes for a train to go from one side of the station, stop at the station, and get to the other side of the station, please tell me how making a faster turn around will make any difference, let alone make the train get through the station faster.

If it takes 3 minutes for a train to get through the station (from the connection on one side to the connection on the other), it is a physical impossibility for all the trains to run less than 3 minutes apart.

For example:

- Outbound 1 (O1) waits on the north side of the station for an inbound train (I1) to pass.

- I1 passes the track connection, so O1 can continue into the station, stop and let passengers off and on, and then continue to the south side of the station and pass the track connection.

- Another inbound train (I2) can then start it's pass through the station.

- Once I2 is through, then another outbound train (O2) can pass through the station.

The time between O1 and O2 and the time between I1 and I2 CAN NOT be less than the time it takes for the trains to pass through the station.

If you can get the time to be less than the time it takes to get through the station, you've invented yourself a ghost train, because the trains will be passing through each other.

It is irrelevant how fast the trains turn around at the other end, except that the faster they turn around, the more likely they are to bottle neck around Saphan Taksin.

Hi,

So for the sake of accuracy, I checked the time trains depart from Surasak and go through Saphan Taskin Station up to the 2 rail lines. In a similar fashion, I also checked timing from Krungthonburi to well beyond Saphan Taksin 2 lines. Please note that I was generous as i calculated time well beyond both back to 2 lines as just mentioned.

Outbound and Inbound lines took both around 90s to go through, including stopping of course.

So, I'm not sure how you got 2 minutes, but it only takes 90s. As a result, it appears that my solution with two drivers is accurate and allows trains every 2min without any stoppage at the bottleneck.

Spread the word!

My timings were examples to show my point - that if the trains are running more often than the time it takes to get through the station, then there will be a bottle neck.

My second point is the time taken to turn around at the end of the line is irrelevant to the time it takes to go through Saphan Taksin station. Whether the turn around time is faster or slower, the only issue is how often trains go through Saphan Taksin. If they are running less than every 90 seconds, then there is going to be a bottle neck.

Given that there IS a bottle neck during peak times, that would indicate that the trains are running every 90 seconds or less.

[Will2011]

They would need to run every 90s to stop at the bottleneck. However, that's not the case as trains are not running as often and won't be a problem since they don't plan to increase frequency as much.

How often trains go do depend on turn around time at the end of the line. The faster trains "turn" the faster the frequency...

[Lakegeneve]

So, do we agree that two drivers would be sufficient to avoid train stoppage at Saphan Taksin and keep that station as it is?

Another alternative, which would be my 4th, is to allocate trains during rush hours, not stopping at Saphan Taksin station every time, just like MRT trains do for peak hours. And it works fine.

Really, there are so many possible alternatives for those who really are motivated, care about the station and its commuters as well as for those who want to save money!

I don't agree. Two drivers won't make the train go through Saphan Taksin station any quicker than now.

And it isn't just the time that a train spends at the station that is the issue. The train has to wait where the tracks join until the one going in the opposite direction has clearly passed. It then needs to go onto the single track, stop at the station to unload and load passengers, and then it has to clear where the tracks join/separate at the other side.

The train passing through the station obviously takes longer than the time between trains going in the other direction, otherwise there wouldn't be a bottleneck.

While my comment wasn't directed to you, to sum up, Lakegeneve affirmed that two drivers will save time about "60-90"s. However, you, whybother, still states that it will not make trains any quicker. So would that make them slow down according to you?

I know we are in Thailand aka Mai Dai Land and excuse Land, where you seem to be well integrated based on your inputs, but that doesn't mean you have to contradict everybody without supporting evidences. So, I would say why even bother posting?!

Sorry but you are going to get a harsh response from moi. I've avoid getting involved in this little debate, just added some info and comments inlcuding a query to you - which you didn't respond to. However, you leave one little choice.

I don't mind someone misunderstanding someone I posted, it may not have been written clearly enough on my behalf and this is a forum where there are many who have english as a second language.

However, I loath people that quote or incorrectly state another's positions to support their own. It is either lazy or intentionally misleading. Here is the whole para;

Not sure that 2 drivers from Siam to WWY would "dramatically reduce stoppage" times. What is the turn around time I wonder ? 60-90 secs? It would save some time which is true. The reason for two drivers from WWY to TP is that it is 6 car operations and operating on a single track thus the BTS really needs to do this as the headway for the service is already 9mins +.

Where do I say that 2 drivers would save 60-90 secs?!? The save time ref is related to the turnaround time! I then explain why there are 2 drivers on the shuttle service from WWY to TP. whybother is correct in the above post, 2 drivers would have no effect on the bottleneck. They would however reduce the turn around time at WWY station. (And I explained how different rolling stock with more doors would reduce the dwell time). Pls reread what was written.

You have taken some info out of context and then mixed it up to help assert a view, a view which is tenuous to say the least. A few of your other ideas may have merit in terms of new station locations but the issue of the single track has to be resolved.

Also, I am not sure how you can be so certain about your timings when you don't know what the beyond turnout clearance points are. The timings need to be for both of these points which are respectively east and west of the station. This would be difficult to ime accurately without having tow people at those points.

At the end of the day, it is a bottleneck which is unique to a metro system in the whole world. It is a problem with physical limitations causing major operational problems. And as I mentioned , ideally it needed to be solved before the Bang Wah extension opens in full.

[whybother]

They would need to run every 90s to stop at the bottleneck. However, that's not the case as trains are not running as often and won't be a problem since they don't plan to increase frequency as much.

How often trains go do depend on turn around time at the end of the line. The faster trains "turn" the faster the frequency...

If trains are not running every 90 seconds, then there should be no bottle neck and therefore no need to demolish the station. Unless of course, the reason they're not running at less than 90 seconds is because it would cause a bottle neck.

The faster the turn around time, the faster the frequency, the more likely there is to be a bottle neck. But there are other ways to increase frequency without having a faster turn around.

[Lakegeneve]

They would need to run every 90s to stop at the bottleneck. However, that's not the case as trains are not running as often and won't be a problem since they don't plan to increase frequency as much.

How often trains go do depend on turn around time at the end of the line. The faster trains "turn" the faster the frequency...

If trains are not running every 90 seconds, then there should be no bottle neck and therefore no need to demolish the station. Unless of course, the reason they're not running at less than 90 seconds is because it would cause a bottle neck.

The faster the turn around time, the faster the frequency, the more likely there is to be a bottle neck. But there are other ways to increase frequency without having a faster turn around.

Very few metros in the world run at a 90sec headway! I'd be worried if that was the schedule for this line at this point in time, it would most likely result in major disruptions and/or an accident of some kind.

[Will2011]

They would need to run every 90s to stop at the bottleneck. However, that's not the case as trains are not running as often and won't be a problem since they don't plan to increase frequency as much.

How often trains go do depend on turn around time at the end of the line. The faster trains "turn" the faster the frequency...

If trains are not running every 90 seconds, then there should be no bottle neck and therefore no need to demolish the station. Unless of course, the reason they're not running at less than 90 seconds is because it would cause a bottle neck.

Absolutely, there is no need for demolition!

[Will2011]

They would need to run every 90s to stop at the bottleneck. However, that's not the case as trains are not running as often and won't be a problem since they don't plan to increase frequency as much.

How often trains go do depend on turn around time at the end of the line. The faster trains "turn" the faster the frequency...

If trains are not running every 90 seconds, then there should be no bottle neck and therefore no need to demolish the station. Unless of course, the reason they're not running at less than 90 seconds is because it would cause a bottle neck.

The faster the turn around time, the faster the frequency, the more likely there is to be a bottle neck. But there are other ways to increase frequency without having a faster turn around.

Very few metros in the world run at a 90sec headway! I'd be worried if that was the schedule for this line at this point in time, it would most likely result in major disruptions and/or an accident of some kind.

In Japan, for example. But that's not really the point, as 90s frequency is not mentioned anyway.

[whybother]

They would need to run every 90s to stop at the bottleneck. However, that's not the case as trains are not running as often and won't be a problem since they don't plan to increase frequency as much.

 

How often trains go do depend on turn around time at the end of the line. The faster trains "turn" the faster the frequency...

 

If trains are not running every 90 seconds, then there should be no bottle neck and therefore no need to demolish the station.  Unless of course, the reason they're not running at less than 90 seconds is because it would cause a bottle neck.

 

Absolutely, there is no need for demolition!

Right. There is no need for demolition, but they're going to demolish anyway. I know this is Thailand, but really, that's a bit of a stretch.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Lakegeneve]

OK we need to get back to basics a little. You seem to have a slight habit of not reading what you don't want to in order to neglect - either willfully or subconsciously - the points or info which challenge your assertions and perceptions.

Maybe I skimmed your middle post there. Point was, if you want to wait for the next train at siam at that time, the time you have to wait for the next train starting from when the initial train leaves is many times less than a minute. This is the time that seems much more pertinent for just a simple old laymen like me I have even had this time be ~45 seconds... I have no idea what that translates to in headway time, don't care either to be honest.

I think most laypeople can understand the need to conduct timings at the same point and in relation to the same ref point of various passing objects/beings. You don't time a 1st place horse at the rear of the horse & then time the 2nd place horse at its nose (which is basically what you are doing). Motor racing, sprints, yachts - laps or final placings are all are timed at the same point and using the same ref point of the passing object/being. Can we pls get that basic concept? (In your world seemingly a lot of 2nd & 3rd placers would actually win!)

Now in a transit context, specifically a train a headway is time between the point at which train the front of train A passes point X and the front of train B passes point X. Again, one doesn't time it from the rear of train A at point X and then the front of train point at point Z. This not only is illogical but it negates the dwell time at the station. This is why some timetable have an arrival and departure time. Assembly line productivity managers would hate you as they never get accurate info. You'd be timing things all over the place, not consistently at all!

I even highlighted the problems with peoples perceptions in estimating timings in an earlier post (same highlights). You basically just reinforced that same problem in your above post;

The headway for the SUk during peak should still be 2:20. However, sometimes it is a little less due to a prior service being late and services attempting to catch up a little. It might seem less than a minute but if you time it at exactly the same point of the train I doubt that it would ever be less than 1:30-1:45 let alone 1:00! (People view a train depart the platform while another approaches not far away so the perspective is askew).

You are still not timing it correctly. But again you, "don't care either to be honest. ". So why bother keep harping on something which is not only grossly incorrect but you which you don't care about??? I really don't get that.

I also wondered if this could be a result of needing to clear the platform, but you say it should be 2:20, so it seems it is just a variance without reason. i would actually think there is a reason to these close trailing trains though. It can be like a snowball effect..... once a train gets a little behind, it will then pick up more passengers than the one behind it, delaying it more, all culminating at siam perhaps (at least imo). The nice thing is, as I said, the trains I get on when I am choosy normally don't pick up nearly as many people after leaving siam b/c they are relatively close to the train in front of them.

The scheduled peak headway is/was 2:20. Again, a schedule and operational reality are very different beings. How many plane schedules do you know end up the same in reality? Actual transit times always vary unless one lives in Switzerland or Japan and even there timetable variance occurs.

And again, the headway should be evaluated at normal operating speeds, not a train stopped prior to a station which waits for a delayed train to depart and then gets clearance before slowly entering the station.

The headway for the SUk during peak should still be 2:20. However, sometimes it is a little less due to a prior service being late and services attempting to catch up a little.

[utalkin2me]

OK we need to get back to basics a little. You seem to have a slight habit of not reading what you don't want to in order to neglect - either willfully or subconsciously - the points or info which challenge your assertions and perceptions.

Maybe I skimmed your middle post there. Point was, if you want to wait for the next train at siam at that time, the time you have to wait for the next train starting from when the initial train leaves is many times less than a minute. This is the time that seems much more pertinent for just a simple old laymen like me I have even had this time be ~45 seconds... I have no idea what that translates to in headway time, don't care either to be honest.

I think most laypeople can understand the need to conduct timings at the same point and in relation to the same ref point of various passing objects/beings. You don't time a 1st place horse at the rear of the horse & then time the 2nd place horse at its nose (which is basically what you are doing). Motor racing, sprints, yachts - laps or final placings are all are timed at the same point and using the same ref point of the passing object/being. Can we pls get that basic concept? (In your world seemingly a lot of 2nd & 3rd placers would actually win!)

Now in a transit context, specifically a train a headway is time between the point at which train the front of train A passes point X and the front of train B passes point X. Again, one doesn't time it from the rear of train A at point X and then the front of train point at point Z. This not only is illogical but it negates the dwell time at the station. This is why some timetable have an arrival and departure time. Assembly line productivity managers would hate you as they never get accurate info. You'd be timing things all over the place, not consistently at all!

I even highlighted the problems with peoples perceptions in estimating timings in an earlier post (same highlights). You basically just reinforced that same problem in your above post;

The headway for the SUk during peak should still be 2:20. However, sometimes it is a little less due to a prior service being late and services attempting to catch up a little. It might seem less than a minute but if you time it at exactly the same point of the train I doubt that it would ever be less than 1:30-1:45 let alone 1:00! (People view a train depart the platform while another approaches not far away so the perspective is askew).

You are still not timing it correctly. But again you, "don't care either to be honest. ". So why bother keep harping on something which is not only grossly incorrect but you which you don't care about??? I really don't get that.

I also wondered if this could be a result of needing to clear the platform, but you say it should be 2:20, so it seems it is just a variance without reason. i would actually think there is a reason to these close trailing trains though. It can be like a snowball effect..... once a train gets a little behind, it will then pick up more passengers than the one behind it, delaying it more, all culminating at siam perhaps (at least imo). The nice thing is, as I said, the trains I get on when I am choosy normally don't pick up nearly as many people after leaving siam b/c they are relatively close to the train in front of them.

The scheduled peak headway is/was 2:20. Again, a schedule and operational reality are very different beings. How many plane schedules do you know end up the same in reality? Actual transit times always vary unless one lives in Switzerland or Japan and even there timetable variance occurs.

And again, the headway should be evaluated at normal operating speeds, not a train stopped prior to a station which waits for a delayed train to depart and then gets clearance before slowly entering the station.

The headway for the SUk during peak should still be 2:20. However, sometimes it is a little less due to a prior service being late and services attempting to catch up a little.

I think the only one harping is you.

This isn't brain surgery, just a simple comment about arrival times at siam headed east after 4... I do ride the bts everyday, and I know these times are relatively very short. All I care about is how long I have to wait for the next train, which is on occasion under a minute tail of the train leaving, to head of the next arriving. If you want to convert that time into your supposedly more valuable headway times, I am sure that is possible. Just realize, nobody cares but you. People care how long they have to wait for the next train. And more importantly, these "fast" trains are very uncrowded, but you don't seem interested at all in talking about anything that is actually useful.

Edited May 22, 2013 by utalkin2me

[whybother]

This isn't brain surgery, just a simple comment about arrival times at siam headed east after 4... I do ride the bts everyday, and I know these times are relatively very short. All I care about is how long I have to wait for the next train, which is on occasion under a minute tail of the train leaving, to head of the next arriving. If you want to convert that time into your supposedly more valuable headway times, I am sure that is possible. Just realize, nobody cares but you. People care how long they have to wait for the next train. And more importantly, these "fast" trains are very uncrowded, but you don't seem interested at all in talking about anything that is actually useful.

.

In the context of the discussion, ie the time between trains, you don't measure it from when one train leaves to when the next one arrives. You measure it from when one leaves to when the next one leaves.

It is pointless to discuss that there is a minute between when a train leaves to when the next one arrives if the next one sits at the station for 10 minutes before it leaves. (OK, it doesn't actually do that, but hopefully you get the point.)

[utalkin2me]

This isn't brain surgery, just a simple comment about arrival times at siam headed east after 4... I do ride the bts everyday, and I know these times are relatively very short. All I care about is how long I have to wait for the next train, which is on occasion under a minute tail of the train leaving, to head of the next arriving. If you want to convert that time into your supposedly more valuable headway times, I am sure that is possible. Just realize, nobody cares but you. People care how long they have to wait for the next train. And more importantly, these "fast" trains are very uncrowded, but you don't seem interested at all in talking about anything that is actually useful.

.

In the context of the discussion, ie the time between trains, you don't measure it from when one train leaves to when the next one arrives. You measure it from when one leaves to when the next one leaves.

It is pointless to discuss that there is a minute between when a train leaves to when the next one arrives if the next one sits at the station for 10 minutes before it leaves. (OK, it doesn't actually do that, but hopefully you get the point.)

In the context of what discussion? You mean the discussion I brought up? If I measure like you say, I'd be standing there timing things as I am getting on the train trying hard to get a seat. Why in the hell would I want to do that? After I have gotten a seat, my inquisitiveness about the timing is over. Anyway, you have both missed the point entirely.

Interestingly, I have been paying even more attention since this ineffectual discussion began. Here are the facts as I see them, head them if you are wise, don't if you want to wank off with headway times...... trains coming into siam headed east come in groups of 2 (for lack of a better term). This means there are 2 trains VERY close together. If you are like me, and don't like people, don't get on the first one. I believe this 2 train grouping effect is like a snowball effect starting when one train coincidentally gets a tad behind, then it snowballs because the head (slow) train is now picking up more passengers. This culminates at siam. I will tell you how I know this..... the next train sometimes becomes visible 15 to 20 seconds after a train leaves! It then stalls for a few moments 50 meters or so from the platform. I think they correct the 2 train grouping effect at siam. However, you can still take advantage of it because the driver doesn't wait all that long, and the rear train is very uncrowded, and then subsequently picks up very few passengers on the way down suk (the slow train in front is picking up the majority because it was lagging).

If that made any sense, good for you.... you're in luck because you just made your experience 100% more enjoyable if you head this way. If it didn't make any sense, and you;d like to spend your time with a stopwatch while I am getting a seat, go right ahead.

Edited May 23, 2013 by utalkin2me

[whybother]

In the context of what discussion? You mean the discussion I brought up? If I measure like you say, I'd be standing there timing things as I am getting on the train trying hard to get a seat. Why in the hell would I want to do that? After I have gotten a seat, my inquisitiveness about the timing is over. Anyway, you have both missed the point entirely.

Interestingly, I have been paying even more attention since this ineffectual discussion began. Here are the facts as I see them, head them if you are wise, don't if you want to wank off with headway times...... trains coming into siam headed east come in groups of 2 (for lack of a better term). This means there are 2 trains VERY close together. If you are like me, and don't like people, don't get on the first one. I believe this 2 train grouping effect is like a snowball effect starting when one train coincidentally gets a tad behind, then it snowballs because the head (slow) train is now picking up more passengers. This culminates at siam. I will tell you how I know this..... the next train sometimes becomes visible 15 to 20 seconds after a train leaves! It then stalls for a few moments 50 meters or so from the platform. I think they correct the 2 train grouping effect at siam. However, you can still take advantage of it because the driver doesn't wait all that long, and the rear train is very uncrowded, and then subsequently picks up very few passengers on the way down suk (the slow train in front is picking up the majority because it was lagging).

If that made any sense, good for you.... you're in luck because you just made your experience 100% more enjoyable if you head this way. If it didn't make any sense, and you;d like to spend your time with a stopwatch while I am getting a seat, go right ahead.

.

What you say makes perfect sense.

What doesn't make sense is why you bother doing any timing.