Train design features affecting boarding and alighting of passengers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Accurately predicting train dwell time is critical to running an effective and efficient service. With high‐density passenger services, large numbers of passengers must be able to board and alight the train quickly – and within scheduled dwell times. Using a specially constructed train mock‐up in a pedestrian movement laboratory, the experiments outlined in this paper examine the impact of train carriage design factors such as door width, seat type, platform edge doors and horizontal gap on the time taken by passengers to board and alight. The findings illustrate that the effectiveness of design features depends on whether there are a majority of passengers boarding or alighting. An optimum door width should be between 1.7 and 1.8 m. The use of a central pole and platform edge doors produced no major effects, but a 200 mm horizontal gap could increase the movement of passengers. There is no clear effect of the type of seats and neither the standbacks between 50, 300 and 500 mm. Further research will look for the relationship between the dwell time and the characteristics of passengers such as personal space. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".