To compare the efficiency of different types of berthing using the optimum configurations from the results of the berthing models. The station in each case is being used for boarding only, with a target of more then 1200 boardings per hour.
| Configuration | length at grade | width | area | Platform Length |
| m | m | m2 | m | |
| Semi-sequential | 80 | 7.8 | 625 | 47 |
| 3 ranks of 4 Sequential | 99.5 | 6.4 | 637 | 77.7 |
| Park with wait | 90.1 | 10.3 | 920 | 64.7 |
| Backout | 114.3 | 9.7 | 1104 | 93.3 |
| Park with wait and back | 66.1 | 15.1 | 998 | 40.0 |
| 8 Lower check-out | 29.4 | 8.0 | 235 | 27.6 |
| 2 ranks of 4 Lower in series | 32.0 | 9.6 | 308 | 30.0 |
Six different station configurations which should be able to accommodate more than 1200 boardings per hour are:
The simple "Parking" configuration has not been included in this comparison. The capacity limits at about half the target and splitting it, for example, into two sets of 4 berths with a bypass lane is similar in area to the "Park 'n Wait" but performs worse because of the absence of waiting positions.
The dimensions of the track and the turning circle are based on ULTra. I have allowed a minimum clearance of 200 mm between vehicles, I have also defined a platform area of 2 x 2 m, shown in yellow, as the minimum needed for comfortable passengers access the vehicle. How they get to this is not included.
The comparison of floor area taken up by the station complex is shown by the green rectangles. The length, width and area of this rectangle are given in the first three columns of the table. The platform length is the distance between the extremes of the left-most and right-most platform (the yellow squares).
In all the following figures the vehicles enter on the left and exit right.
There is a new layout: Semi-sequential , which looks very promising but has not yet been modelled.
Sequential configuration. This has been modelled
Park with wait position with vehicles that can only go forwards. This has been modelled
Vehicles can back out of the berths. There is a wait position serving each set of three berths. This has modelled
Park with wait position with vehicles that back out of the berth. This has been modelled. Note the extra exit lane. A configuration with a single exit lane was modelled but the capacity was less than 1200 boardings per hour
The last two configurations are based
on the having a mechanism for lowering vehicles from an upper level
down to a station at grade.
The purple area represent a lift arrangement.
The upper one lowers the vehicle to a wait position. When the vehicle
is boarded, the lower one lifts it back to the guideway level and the
waiting vehicle moves into the boarding position. A check-out
configuration has been modelled with the idea of short ramps rather than lifts. I don't think this will affect the performance.
This configuration could have a separate alighting berth in the upper waiting position. In the other types provision for alighting would require extending the area to accommodate some extra berths
In this configuration the lift in line with
the guideway lowers the vehicle down to a waiting position. When the
vehicle in the position offset from the guideway has been boarded is is
lifted up and moved sideways to be in line with the guideway. The
waiting vehicle is moved sideways into the boarding position. This has
been modelled .
This configuration is arguably more complex than the last one because it requires actuators for the sideways movements.
There is a strong argument that stand-alone elevated stations are a bad idea. The alternative is to bring the vehicles to grade. This is implicit in the last two configurations. For the first three this would require ramps at entry and exit. The next figure shows a comparison of the five configurations. The slope of the ramps is as specified for ULTra: 6.25% for the down ramp and 10% for up. The clearance at the top of the ramp for pedestrian access underneath is 2.5 m.
The total length of the station complex, including ramps is given in the table.