PreviousHomeSheetNext

Discussion of berths and stations

Introduction

The PAT philosophy is to have a network of guideways and many small stations. However there will be a few situations, such as a major airport or railway terminus, where there will be a large flux of passengers and limited room for the PAT berths. Even here it would be better to have the berths distributed about the terminus, perhaps even to individual platforms.

Anderson points out that the maximum flow of passengers passing through a single door seems to be about one every 3 seconds, or 1200 per hour. Other studies indicate that the average time taken for passengers to board a PAT vehicle at an airport will be about 24 seconds, indicating that this flow would need up to 8 berths. This time includes the time for the doors to open and close and for the full vehicle to pull out and the empty vehicle to enter. This would be assuming that there is an empty vehicle waiting and the full vehicle can leave without delay.

Commuters or spectators, generally fit and unencombered by luggage, would be quicker to board but the potential for delays would be greater.

What this section is about

The questions asked in this section are:

Is the orthodox station configuration with sequential berthing as inefficient as it looks?Yes, but can be improved by incorporating several ranks
Are there other configurations which are better?Definitely 
Which are?See table below
Does the MAIT concept offer a unique advantage?Not really for berthing

In the next two sections I have used a rather simplistic microsimulation models , using spreadsheets, to compare the performance  of various types berthing configurations. I used these models to compare the best configuration of each type that is capable of more than 1200 boardings per hour. The most relevant results are summarised in this table:

 Relative footprint of high capacity stationRelative platform lengthConfiguration name
 Vehicles go forwards only100%100%Sequential
ditto98%60%Semi-sequential
ditto144%83%Wait_n_Park
Vehicles can go backwards156%51%Wait_Back_Park
Vehicles can move vertically36%35%Lower_CO

Conclusions

  1. I suggest that the Wait and Park should be modelled in simulators rather than the Sequential or Parking.
  2. For first generation PAT the Wait-Park-Back configuration with the extra exit lane has the shortest platform but take up the largest floor space.
  3. Technology for moving vehicles vertically  should be planned for second generation PAT schemes.